Secular  Fabrics   v/s   Lower Consciousness

                         There is a moment  Anand Patwardhan’s lengthy documentary ‘Vivek’ (Reason) where  Dr.Shaila Dabholkar, wife of slain rationalist thinker Narendra  Dabholkar, recalls their first meeting.  She says that one of the first things Dabholkar asked her was is she knew how to  do a caesarean, implying that she would have to earn for the family while he would work for the progressive movement.“It was a very revealing moment ,  in spite of the emotions she was willing to speak about.” Says Patwardhan.

While covering the events following the death of Vemula, .“I got irritated, I saw Gandhi on their poster, Ambedkar too; these are the people they had  either killed or whose ideology they destroyed.  Then why do they have their image on the posters”, he fumes.

“I don’t believe there should be any distinction between Art and Politics.  I don’t believe Art and Politics  are two different things.  If you do your work well, you can  become Artist.  If you think that you are an Artist and you have to make art , you will never succeed.  You can fool others., Artists not something that comes because somebody tried to make art, it is something which comes because it transcended the moment, it communicates across geography and generations.”  Patwardhan explains

The film ‘Vivek’,  triggered by the murders of Dabholkar and Pansare, was made over  a span of four years.  “After he started making the film, Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh were murdered.  Akhlam was killed for eating beef.  The documentary basically exposes the fault lying in our country India between those who believe in reason and are fighting for secular democracy and those who are pushing religious agenda”

For Patwardhan, Hindutva is not a religion.  It is just Brahmanism.   It is an act of supremacy. I am better than you and I am a nationalist.  That is the message.  These people never fought for this country.  They never went to jail against the British.  They were the collaborators.

Patwardhan says “nobody is born bad, people are brainwashed, so that sometimes something breaks through.  You can make a penetration.  I have had people who want to  demolish Masjids, but who changed their attitude after watching Ram ke Naam (His film).  They told me that they thought that they were doing for the nation.  But now they understood , they were being mislead".

                                                                                                          From Aswinkumar’s TOI article

                            The Easter bombings in Sri  Lanka once again turned a spotlight on the challenge of global jihad, terrorism and Islam phobia.  Muslim scholars and community leaders from across the world have condemned the attack, dissociated themselves from the perpetrators and defended Islam as a religion of peace.

Many Muslims are constantly feeling like they need to apologise.  Still, they continue to face a backlash and stereotyping  of their community.

It is true that these terrorists do not represent  the overwhelming majority of Muslims, who oppose terrorists groups like the militant Islamic State (ISIS), the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda.  They may not represent the Islam that moderate Muslims know and follow.

It is worth  emphasising that ,  as a Muslim,  I strongly believe that the Muslim belief is no more ”violent” than those  of other religions.  Violent extremism is a complex phenomenon with multiple driving factors including injustice, identity crisis, extremist ideologies and socio-economic reasons.

Western military interventions in Muslim countries and support to authoritarian  Muslim rulers have played a role in the rise of Islamic extremists and militants in the Muslim world.

The problem is that while Muslims almost always talk about that the politics that creates terrorism, and rightly so, they are reluctant to discuss the role of radicalised interpretations in inspiring terrorist violence.  In Muslim-majority countries, a small segment of Muslims do recognise the challenge posed by radical interpretations  of religion and disputes a literalist reading advocated by fundamentalists, they argue, are often misinterpreted  and quoted out of context.

Any Muslim can interpret  religion the way he or she likes.

Publicly, most Muslims are reluctant to openly engage in a debate regarding religion.  Those who do so, often pay a huge price.

Moderate Muslims cannot be blamed for not engaging in open public debate because most Muslim countries lack the environment required for discussing sensitive issues.

From Rafiullah Kakar’s article