However, what troubles me more in the immediate timeframe is that the debate over India's nuclear deal with the US has already been used to create divisions among India's people. It is not sufficient for Indian politicians to make personal gains; they must gain from others' problems. In this case, I speak of how some politicians have ridiculously claimed that the India's nuclear deal with the United States is anti-Muslim. Why? Why is it anti-Muslim? Is it because the US is "anti Muslim" and partnering with such a country is "anti Muslim" (by that logic, much of the Muslim world is against itself)? or is it because this deal may hinder a potential Iran-Pakistan-India energy pipeline deal? If these are reasons for Indian Muslims to take offense, then I think their priorities are misplaced. But, I am positive that Indian Muslims don't view this deal from the US versus Islam perspective. Most Indian Muslims, like most other Indians, probably want a good and decent life. They don't have ambitions or pretensions to worry about some high flying nuclear cooperation deal that does little for their children's education or health or nutrition.
If Mayawati, Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, or other such politicians who claim that the Indo-US nuclear deal is anti-Muslim, care so much about Indian Muslims, then perhaps they could explain why they don't spend as much energy on some key issues affecting India's Muslim community. A report commissioned at the request of the Indian government lays out a pretty sorry state of affairs as far as socio-economic conditions of Indian Muslims are concerned. Indian Muslims need better health and education and support to benefit from India's growing economy. They need reforms to help their children compete in this modern world and become more productive members of society. In many ways, Indian Muslims need what Indian Hindus need and what Indian Christians need--what all Indians need. They need a fair shot and that's all. What Indian Muslims definitely do not need is the help of unscrupulous politicians who will pay lip service to their concerns, make their concerns look special when they are not, and then then, at the first available opportunity, use them as leverage for petty personal gains.
Until next time...
Posts
Good write-up KashmirGlobal. I dont think I'll be able to convince you or others who have already made up their minds that there is no such thing as a muslim identity, and that anyone who talks about a muslim identity would be a hot-headed 'Islamic rage boy'. But inspite of these stereotypes I'll give it a shot and put forth my few points:
ReplyDelete-You claim that much of the muslim world would be againts itself because many muslim countries cooperate militarily with the US. How many of these countries are democracies? Qatar, Saudi (former bases), Jordan, Egypt and their ilk are all dictatorships. If you were to ask the suppressed muslim populace of these countries about cooperating with the US I am sure you would get an answer not very far from the percieved 'muslim identity'.
-India would sooner or later be able to produce its own nuclear fuel, and if muslims are respected as equal citizens of India, cooperation with US over the nuclear deal should be stopped, in solidarity with Iran. At the same time research for the indigineous production of Uranium should be bolstered.
-Double standards. US is on the verge of militarily striking Iran for suspision of having a secret nuclear weapons program, and therefore Iran is prohibited by the US and its henchmen from pursuing a peaceful nuclear program for generating electricity. India already has nuclear weapons and yet is helped with the civilian nuclear program. Anyone see the doublle standard?? is it because Iran and Syria are muslim countries and not buddies with the terrorist state of Israel? I suspect that is the main reason.
-If you still want muslims to support this deal, you have to assume that we are brain-dead sheep who follow any solgan of the "poor, downtrodden, helpless muslims of India" who would somehow overnight come out of this misrey by the US-India nuclear deal.
Koshur,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.
I accept that my line of argument on Muslim countries is in some ways lessened by their dictatorships. But, there are democracies with large or majority Muslim populations that work with the US and that is fine. Countries have to work with each other; that is a reality.
On whether or not India becomes self sufficient in nuclear fuel is something I am not an expert on. My post was not based on that possibility. At the same time, I am not a fan of using Indian Muslims for international politics. There are plenty of Muslims around the world to show solidarity with Iran. Indian Muslims have many more pressing issues and the best thing they can do for themselves and the Muslim world is to focus on improving their lot.
You talk about America's double standards. Every country has double standards. America's just stand out more because of that country's prominence on the world stage. It seems you are motivated more by Iran's situation than by what is in India's interests. I would suggest that Indian Muslims ought to focus first on what is good for their country and for themselves.
I don't assume that Muslims are brain dead or that the nuclear deal will alleviate their problems. If you read my post carefully, my main point is that Indian Muslims have to tackle their own issues and not be dragged into a situation that divides them from the rest of India. They have to work towards a better future for themselves and for their children--with or without a nuclear deal.
Until next time...