LATEST

""

""

Monday, January 12, 2015

Dear Rana Ayyub, Do You Know A Word Called Introspection?


I never found anyone so confused while writing; more so, someone who has become a legend among the liberals of this country in using choicest of words to describe Narendra Modi. The collection of dismay, pain, benevolence, hypocrisy, victimhood in latest Rana Ayyub’s spectacle on NDTV portal makes one confusing reading. Even the subject of her post – “French Have My Condolences, Not My Apology” in itself is grossly out of sync with the content of the post. Either Ms. Ayyub wasn’t sure what she wanted to write or she completely misread the reasons of this strong emotional outpour against the French attackers in particular and Muslims in general. Before you read too much into my initial paragraph let me clarify this, I for one never took Rana Ayyub as a journalist too seriously. In fact I don’t take anyone seriously, who has some kind of association, present or past, with the now dead junk periodical like Tehelka. By the way, do read Ms. Ayyub’s frustration/confusion here before moving ahead.

For starters Ms. Ayyub clarifies the context for her outburst which largely seems directed against the entire world but the real culprits. She writes

This is not an angry letter, and if you insist it is, feel free to say that, for we seem to have a global consensus on free speech in a long time.
Then what it is Ms. Ayyub? I agree there is a very thin line between being angry and being reasoning but at the same time the gap is quite enough to find the difference. Though you just started with the post, you promptly presumed that the readers would take the post as an angry outburst. And, believe me, presumption is the first symptom of brewing anger. Had you been convincing, as you thought you were, you may not had to write the declaration at all or at best could have fitted it at the end of the post. Your presumption along with your staunch declaration suggests the existence of anger, more than conviction. Anyway, let’s move ahead.

Hang-on; you seem to have reasons to be angry or so you think. The next paragraph after the declaration makes it quite clear, from where the anger is emanating.

A  friend remarked in good humor hours after the firing at the French satirical newspaper "Why yaar, you Muslims kill all the time?" It was a remark made in good humour, she suggested, just as my friends in Class 5 would ask me, presumably in similar fun ribbing spirit, before an Indo- Pak cricket match "So Pakistan today, na?"
Though I don’t buy your friend’s view point just to remain politically correct, I still find some semantics with his/her question. I agree, asking this question to an individual might be wrong but isn’t it a bitter truth in terms of the entire Muslim populace? Anyone who advocates herself as a truth excavating investigative journalist must have been neutral in analyzing the question, unlike you Ms. Ayyub. Across the globe, most of the terror acts (at least 95%) have Muslim association. Won’t you agree Ms. Ayyub, there is something fundamentally wrong with the patrons, whom you refer as ‘Misguided Muslims’, more than those stereotyping terror acts with your community? If I wish to be blatant then I may counter ask; why shouldn’t I generalize every terror attack? Till how far the bogus theorem of “Terror Has No Religion” should be flogged for political correctness? The so called ‘Misguided Muslims’ have turned into the biggest headache for world peace and there are 40 million of them that we know. For pointer, take the terror acts of any of the last 20 years and segregate the attacks those have non-Muslim association. I am sure your question would be answered in no uncertain terms, provided you are brave enough to listen to the enunciation of truth. And the truth is; there is something terribly wrong with a community, which surprisingly commits itself to terror at the drop of a hat. Why blame people for someone else's hysterical viewpoint for everything? People are quite smart and they only become critical for valid reasons, not just for fun, which you may believe to be the case. Introspection than accusation might help you see the truth in a better perspective, I assure you.

Coming back to the cricket part – it is also a fact. I have seen people in an area called Nala Road in Rourkela celebrating vehemently for every win of Pakistan against India. On one occasion the celebrating crowd attacked couple of NIT Rourkela students, who were also my friend, for opposing such naked anti-India celebration. I have heard people in Bangalore sounding terribly upset post India’s win against Pakistan in 2011 cricket world cup. Not far ago there was a scuffle in JNU hostel when students from J&K started celebrating wildly when Sahid Afridi hit couple of sixes to win the match against India in T20 World cup. Examples are many, if you ask. It is only such examples that have convinced people to generalize every genuine Muslim like you, vis-à-vis Cricket or for that matter anything involving India and Pakistan. The truth in fact is; people are formulating such disoriented speculations for a long time and its only getting more robust post each such event. Pity that you had to face the wrath but then, who helped in building such a bigotry aura around an entire community Ms. Ayyub? Hindus?

Never mind. Let’s see what you write further.

My faith is a personal matter and sacrosanct. Having said that, I consider myself a proud Muslim. I have taken the most bigoted comments on my work in my stride though most of my investigations seen through the prism of religion, judging by the comments posted on my pieces and the reactions I provoke in person from people who discuss my work.

My reportage on fake encounters has been dissected with clinical precision, generating fury and an interrogation of my credentials, while my investigations on tribals and Dalits, for which I have received prestigious awards, have largely gone unnoticed by my critics and friends alike. 

No one is disputing your personal choice of being a ‘Proud Muslim’, Ms. Ayyub. But then, the emotional outpour of yours’ should have been consistent when Narendra Modi called himself a ‘Proud Hindu’. I remember you being very critical of that Modi statement. Not only that, you also twisted a story around that statement and concluded, how Modi is anti-minority. Won’t you think, it would be hurting NaMo equally, as much you are hurt for being questioned of your ‘Proud Muslim’ altar? Is it double standard or the great investigative journalist in Rana Ayyub has forgotten some recent past? And, people see whatever you investigate through the prism of religion because of the disputable history you carry. Everything that you said about Modi is falling flat on it's face. Every so called investigation you did to malign Modi has turned out to be lies or at best your pigment of imagination. And, most interesting; you being an investigative journalist failed to unearth, not even a single crime of the Congress party, when there was almost scam-a-day period. Now don’t tell me that you are so convinced by the piousness of the Congress party that you never found any reason to go after them. Trust me, no one will believe, much less me. So, none from Congress featuring on your investigation list was just a coincidence or a deliberate attempt at looking the other way, Ms. Ayyub? Irony, you still are amused why people look through the prism of religion for everything you say. Wasn’t that expected, Ms. Ayyub?

And, by the way, your investigations were analyzed with clinical precision because of the nature of the crime those investigations claimed to deal with. Had the courts and people of India believed you on face value then someone’s political career would have been ruined by now and he would probably be waiting for the gallows. Won’t you think Ms. Ayyub; something that can have such repercussions on someone’s future, career and life, must be and should be analyzed clinically? What you expected everyone else, including our courts to do? Announce judgment against Narendra Modi and everyone else you investigated, based on your dubious claims alone? Aren’t your claims found out to be dubious anyway? So what is the fuss here Ms. Ayyub? Or am I missing something?

Forget it. Let’s see what your next problem is.

When I write this today, every word seethes with frustration. Because, my identity today appears to have value only as a terror apologist, a Muslim who stands up to bigotry. I have to frame a politically-correct response post every terror attack, some allegedly by members of the Muslim community, and others where the perpetrators were clearly misguided Islamic fanatics who stand in absolute contradiction to everything believers like me have ever stood for.

It baffles me when I am singled out for an apology. I wonder if my Tamil friends have ever been asked to apologise for the terror acts of the LTTE, for the suicide bombings by the Tamil Tigers, including the assassination of Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi.

It baffles me when Brahmins in the country are not singled out when a family of Dalit women is raped and murdered in broad daylight in Khairlanji, and when the upper caste commits atrocities on Dalits across the country in the name of faith.

It baffles me that never is a Christian looked at with suspicion or anger over the attacks on abortion clinics, or the seemingly placid acceptance of a white who goes on a shooting spree of innocent students, or a Jew asked to apologize over the carnage of Palestinians. Is an American asked to apologize for innocent Afghans and Iraqis killed by the US Army in collateral damage?

Why do you sit in assumption over my morals and my essential humanity when you call me and ask me, "So what do you think about that attack?"

Quite a long diatribe, no? Let’s take one-by-one with clinical precision.

Let’s face this Ms. Ayyub – If not for Narendra Modi, no one would have and bothered to have known you. No, not even by a thousandth proportion that they do at present. And it is not a secret that, all that the investigative journalists in you did over the years is to somehow prove Modi an all time Muslim hater and a criminal at large.That is perhaps why the Hitler name for Modi makes you feel so excited. This claim of yours was proved wrong in our courts. In short, all your nonsense passing of as ‘Investigative Journalism’ got the beating of their lives by our criminal justice system. Since what you said is already proven wrong, tell me one reason, why people shouldn’t brand you as a terror apologist? You made Sarabuddin Seikh a hero with lies so that Modi could be prosecuted; you made a martyr out of Ishrat Jahan just because you wanted Modi to be hanged; you made Jakia Zafri a direct victim in the hands of Modi with false stories. You did everything that the word ‘fabrication’ can describe and yet accusing us for calling you terror apologist? I must say, I admire your audacity Ms. Ayyub.

Since you have talked about the Tamils, I must clear one thing right away. The LTTE, whether good or bad, had a reason and vision, devoid of religion, in their fight. However unrealistic their demands and approach may be, LTTE never killed innocents, who are not connected to their fight, unlike the Islamic terrorists who kill people for the heck of it. One more thing, the LTTE terror act was limited to Sri Lanka or at best the countries that had friendly diplomatic ties with the island nation. Rajiv Gandhi came to their radar only after his massive hara-kiri of IPKF fame. Show me one instance of LTTE where they have killed people just to create terror like the Islamic terrorists do. This is perhaps why at the first line of this post I called you a confused writer. Not only LTTE, the same could be said about other religions to some extent. First, terror coming out of non-Muslim religions is fringe in nature, unlike the once-a-day phenomenon of the Islamic terror modules. Second, all of them have a reason or two, not strictly related to their religion or religious beliefs. While we can argue other’s terror act as part of their fight, what Islamic terrorists do is killing people to keep themselves relevant and in news. While others fight for their right, the Islamic buffoons do it deliberately to scare people out of their comfort. Still you want to go ahead with the comparison Ms. Ayyub?

Going forward, Ms. Ayyub says.

I feel compelled - sometimes pressured - to tweet stories of the religious identity of the officer who died saving the lives of journalists in France. Why? 

Why am I forced to let everyone know that the employee of a kosher supermarket, who risked his life to save the lives of Jews from a desperate gunman, was a Muslim?

Why am I forced to post pictures of Muslims in France offering namaaz for the slain journalists? 

Why am I forced to reiterate to my friends, "Hey, listen, the commanding officer in the final raid on the assailants was a Muslim"?

Even I want to ask, why you do it. If not for guilt, I don’t see a reason why you have to somehow find a Muslim hero in each of the terror acts. No one from any other religion tries to find a hero from their religion in a terror act. Why it always has to be Muslims and terror sympathizers who try to draw a larger than life image of a Muslim after every terror act? Not sure of the reasons? You know what Ms. Ayyub? The Chalie Hebdo chaps were not insulting the prophet but actually were/are mocking the Islamic fundamentalists and terror apologists across the globe like you because, it is only fundamental for anyone to draw the image of the guru looking at his/her disciples. Don’t blame them since you people have become the window to the core ethics of Islam for them. You are ready to shout from the top of the tallest building of the world and vouch for the good teachings of Islam but won’t answer why then people only know the likes of 72 virgin philosophies instead. Why none in your brethren takes the pain to let know the rest of us the so called good things of your religion? Why people know the most worrisome verse of Quran – “We will strike deep into the heart of the infidel” than knowing the peaceful phrases of the holy book? Ms. Ayyub, you can’t possibly be blaming the entire world while giving cleanchits to yourself and your brethren. Don’t expect people to get killed by your religious fanatics and then do the hard work of understanding the otherwise peaceful aspects of your religion. Won’t you think Ms. Ayyub that is too much of an ask?

To end the post, Ms. Ayyub goes on for a self-assuring spree. How convenient that is.

As I write this today, I am also assured that bigotry and this mindless Islamophobia will not be allowed a free rein, and the front-runners who will defend my faith and its followers from this mindless hate will be non-Muslims.

It is heartening to see that for every Rupert Murdoch who gives voice to this pandemic bigotry, there are a hundred other journalists, activists, humanists across the globe who are fighting an unpopular battle each day to defend Muslims from this rampant prejudice.

You find ‘Moderate Muslim’ as hurting while you were never far away from using phrases like ‘Hero Of Hatred’ for someone else. And by the way, for long, it is people like you who have tried to defend faggots of your religion by terming them as ‘Moderate Muslims’. Such fancy words are dear to our media because it acts as massive weapons to drive truth to become a causality. It is our media and their vested interest which has divided the Muslims into two flimsy groups, much like the good terrorists’ and bad terrorists’ jingoism of Pakistan. To be frank, your blames are grossly misdirected Ms. Ayyub and I strongly recommend some solipsism for quick healing. And for your information, Rupert Murdoch is not just an individual, if you care to see the truth behind his utterances. Had his words were of an individual, an erudite person like you wouldn’t have been so famished for an individual’s opinion? Would you have?

By the way Ms. Ayyub, do you know about a word called Introspection? If not then get hold of a dictionary in a hurry. Have a great day and may Allaha bestow you with peace.

Share this:

15 comments :

  1. What a post!!! 100/100. A better punch for these perpetual victimhood mongers couldn't be asked for. For ages, the terrorists would shed innocent blood and then they have these humongous apologists to justify their ghastly act with victimhood. Hope Rana Ayyub reads this and does some much needed introspection

    ReplyDelete
  2. Taslima's article in todays TOI is a good read.
    Couple of observations:
    There are many terrorist organizations post 1970s. They all kill. The argument made is that small groups can never match militaries of nation-states and anything related to Government are legitimate targets in asymmetric warfare. Naxals for example target mainly government officals.
    However only Islamic terrorists kill taking the name of God.
    Also only Islamic terrorists kill innocents "for the fun of it". Hypothetically, even in Charlie is a genuine target, which I don't believe, how one can explain killings in super market. So, really there is no method behind their madness.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Surendra Singh SumanJan 13, 2015, 5:18:00 PM

    A great job! Well done.

    "Introspection than accusation might help you see the truth in a better perspective."
    I feel that's the only thing they wont do beacuse of their unwillingness to have respect and care for others point of views. You may remember the slogan "Islam will rule the world". They are all working towards that goal no matter whether they are educated, intelligent or illiterate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi there,

    As I have said earlier also, I am not as intelligent as you are, but I would like to ask some questions.

    40 million??? Even Pentagon, NIA, CIA don't give that estimate. How do you come to this conclusion? What is your estimate about Indians in these 40 million?

    Regarding supporting Pakistan cricket team, I may easily be the biggest supporter of Indian cricket team when it plays Pakistan. There were times when people in my Muslim dominated town celebrated a Pakistan victory, and I literally fighting many of my friends, but time has changed. Probably you have not seen this or maybe you don't trust if I say I support Indian team. When Kashmiri students cheered at Pakistani victory, many of them were expulsed from the college and even charged with sedition. Is it really a sedition? or is it really patriotism to support your cricket team? Many Indian-origin British support Indian cricket team when England play them in England. In fact you feel you are watching a match in Eden Garden rather than Lords. Do you label them traitors? Traitors because they support the rival team? You may argue that England is not in war with India, but Pakistan was also not in war with India when those students cheered its victory.

    If she considers Mr. Modi of being responsible for killing of Muslims in 2002, don't you consider Rajiv Gandhi and other congress people responsible for killing of Sikhs in 1984. They were never convicted, but even after 30 years you treat them as guilty.
    Probably you have not read the history of LTTE and their terrorist attacks. There is even a list on wikipedia you can go through. Maybe killing of Sri Lankan president using a 10-year-old boy is not a big deal according to you. And your argument that their activity was limited to Sri Lanka is laughable.
    Regarding Charlie Hebdo, let me explain to you. It is prohibited in Islam to draw any picture of God or Prophet. It will be equally objectionable to me if you draw Prophet as a king. The question is not about insuling or making fun, but making a picture of him. If you want to discuss about freedom of speech, you can write another post on that and I have my explanations on that.
    That being said, I agree with you 95% of terrorists are Muslims, but I don't agree that 95% Muslims are terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are you trying to say J &K students in JNU are PAki origins living in India and cheering for their country ??? Who Burned the Train in Godhara , which ignited the Riots ??? U keep on justifying and you will keep on having questions thrown on u ??
    BC has aptly said , do an act and then play victim .

    ReplyDelete
  6. What makes you think / believe that Pakistan was not in war with India? They have failed thrice and now, they have been trying hard thru proxy war, by sending terrorists and violating the ceasefire at the border. Beheading of our soldiers at the border and what they have done to some of our soldiers during the Kargil war (by torturing them in many ways) tells a lot about their barbaric nature. Supporting a team from such a rogue nation just because they happened to be a nation following the faith that the youth follow, might not be a problem for you. But any patriotic Indian (irrespective of the faith that he / she follows) would not accept it. Coming to Rajiv Gandhi, where is the question of him getting convicted? Has he ever been questioned by any law enforcing authorities for his open support of the Sikh massacre? It's a well known fact that Rajiv Gandhi, along with Arjun Singh, has helped Anderson to run away from the counrty after the Bhopal gas tragedy. Why can't Rajiv Gandhi be tried for that? The 'sick'ular brigade that jump over each other to point fingers at Modi for what ever that has happened in 2002, were never bothered to question on what what basis a noble soul like Rajiv Gandhi (considering the 2 worst things that have happened in 1984) has been conferred with Bharat Ratna.

    ReplyDelete
  7. If we are in war with Pakistan, why did honorable prime minister invite Pak PM to his oath taking ceremony? To serve him Biryani? And this is not the answer to my question regarding supporting other team.
    NDA government was in power for six years earlier and now they are in power. Why don't they initiate inquiry against Rajiv Gandhi? Why don't the pseudo-nationalists ask the government to take action against him now? any why blame only him for the Sikh massacare. Ask your elders, if you live in Delhi, if they were also involved in those riots and you may look for some place to hide.
    By the way, plane hijack and subsequent release of terrorists (in the comfortable company of the then Foreign Minister) and then 2002 riots happened in Mr. Vajpayee's tenure. Should this be enough to debar him from conferring Bharat Ratna?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am not saying they are Paki origins. But I asked what about people of Indian origin, living in Britain, who support Indian team when they play England. Note these people are British national, born and bred in Britain. Do you say they are traitors, to their country?
    Regarding Godhra, who gave you right to take action against the suspect even before an enquiry is initiated? Don't you believe the law of the country. This was when the state and central goverment was of your own nationalist party.

    PLAY victim, after more than 2000 people are killed, right?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Bro, I am little confused. At one point, the apologists justify that terror acts increased in India post 1992 but at the same time we lesser mortals can't even reason that the riots of Gujarat started post the burning of 59 Kar sevaks? At one point, liberals justify the Mumbai blasts and hundreds killed therein as a response to 1992 demolition but we can't even ask - if so then accept that the 1142 lives lost in Gujarat riots is the response to 59 charred bodies in Savarmati Express. Deal settled, no? Why drag it then? Lets move on...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Really? I would love to know the names of those LIBERALS who justify 1992 Mumbai blasts. For me, and I deem myself VERY liberal, 1993 Mumbai blasts or 2009 Mumbai attack were acts of terrorism and I support strict action against the conspirators. I also strongly condemn Godhra and you should also condemn post-Godhra.
    And, if you are justifying an eye for an eye, then what is the difference between those terrorists and you nationalists?

    ReplyDelete
  11. If you don't think that supporting a massacre by saying 'when a big tree falls, the earth shakes', there is no point in letting you know anything. For the release of terrorists, there was genuine reason. There were more than 150 lives that were in danger. But what was the compulsion for Rajiv Gandhi to help Andreson leave the country? Why should I ask my elders about the massacre of Sikhs planned and executed by the Thappad party leaders, when we were no way related to that? And where is the question of looking or some place to hide? Just for the sake of posting something, don't write anything without any logic or reason. Please read the message properly. It was proxy war I mentioned, but not war. We all know who has served Biryani to Kasab and the minister from Pakistan, that too when that was his personal visit. You are wonderful. One side, you guys say that NDA government to initiate inquiry. But if they do, you blame them that they are being targetted. You could talk either way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Okay. What about "action has reaction" by our the then honorable PM. and should I remind you who reminded who to follow "raj dharma" in 2002.

    I agree, to save 150 lives, it was a genuine reason to release the terrorists, though the situation could have been handled better before, maybe at Amritsar airport itself, or by other means. Anyway, release of terrorists is for everyone to see, while Rajiv Gandhi helping Anderson escape the country is just known to you and people like you. Don't give me example of some book where it is mentioned that Rajiv Gandhi or Arjun Singh helped him flee. Until proven guilty, all are innocent. We can also say we all know who was mastermind of 2002, who ordered encounters etc.

    Hello, if you don't live in Delhi, you better don't speak about 1984.

    Regarding war with Pakistan, it is well known to all who was behind the Kargil war, yet our honorable PM invited Mian Musharraf on red carpet, initiated bus service to Lahore, giving MFN status to Pakistan, why? to give them lessons how to fight a proxy war? or how to make biryani? and if there is proxy war, what made our present PM forget beheading of our soldiers and inviting Pak PM for biryani?

    Oh sir, you are also wonderful. You keep cursing people for 1984 but justify 2002. You blame for Anderson, but have your explanation for Kandhar. You shout Bofors but don't talk about Tehelka. You also talk either way.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have seen people like you hardly talks about about Godhra train burning incident but they go berserk when one start talking about Post Godhra riots. After 12 years of grilling and that to in Congress Raj of 10 years Modi got clean chit. The action has reaction was told for the former MP from congress who was burnt alive. The Raj Dharm preaching was made because riots erupted in large scale for the first 2 days post Godhra and according to Vajpayee's observation Modi was seen as powerless to control it.As you know he was asked for help from bordering state for reinforcement but all the three congress ruled state gave him cold shoulder.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It wasn't "action has reaction" even though it wouldn't be completely wrong in a description of the riots.
    What he said - "the chain of action and reaction must be broken"
    If you are taking the high moral ground -
    Stick to the facts else you come out as an apologist.

    ReplyDelete

 
Copyright © 2006-2016 Being Cynical. Designed by OddThemes | Distributed By Gooyaabi Templates