Ms Sabrina Siddiqui, Ms Ilhan Omar and Ms Rana Ayyub: empowered, Western-oriented Muslim Women and the harm they may cause to oppressed, uneducated Muslim Women in the East and South

A few years ago, I wrote a blog on the topic “Imran leads Pakistan, who should lead India?” In that blog, I concluded that among all the leaders, Mr Narendra Modi is a better bet. In fact, I was once a very ardent admirer of Imran Khan. My admiration for him was essentially because he had an Oxford degree, led his country to a World Cup victory and married a Jewish lady (now divorced) notwithstanding the strong anti-semitism in his country. Most importantly he established a state-of-the-art cancer hospital in Pakistan. I thought he was head and shoulders above most of the cricketers that I had seen in India and abroad.

While it was known to everybody that Imran Khan as a political leader was propped up by the Pakistani Army-which has been given a greater right under their Constitution to control the destiny of Pakistan than its Legislature, Executive and Judiciary. Imran Khan as the Prime Minister of Pakistan was an unmitigated disaster. During his tenure, he did something which is unthinkable for any Pakistani Leader. He tried his best to reduce the role and importance of the Pakistani Army in the governance of Pakistan. Like any other Democratic leader in Pakistan, he has also paid the price. Mercifully, he continues to be alive and if opinion polls are to be believed, he is likely to become the PM if the Polls are held and if he is allowed to contest in the polls (very unlikely). However, many in India including Mr Sushant Sareen believe that to have Imran Khan as the leader of Pakistan is the best thing that can happen for India. His short-sighted decision of not resuming trade relations with India cost his country dearly and Pakistan is on the verge of debt default and is heading towards an economic abyss.

On the other hand, the performance of Mr Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister of India is much better. Despite the Ukraine crisis and the uncertainties in global oil prices, India remains a beacon of hope for developing countries in terms of economic stability (World Bank opinion). The foreign exchange reserves are comfortable and when Pakistan resorted to acts of cross-border terrorism, India’s response was fast and decisive. Even China ended up with a bloody nose in the Galwan Encounter. The crisis is far from over and talks to resolve the crisis are proceeding at an agonisingly slow pace. Yet, India continues its substantial trade engagement with China, notwithstanding countless irritants in their relationship. The Modi government has been able to pull up more impoverished people from the Below Poverty Line benchmark, which includes many Muslims. Women in UP (even if they are Muslims) who have been given gas stoves and subsidised gas connections thank Modi. The success of the BJP in two consecutive elections can also be attributed to the Muslim Women empowerment, brought about, to some extent, by the abolition of Triple Talaq.

India and the US are going to have elections in 2024. With all their imperfections, both these countries have a transparent election process that produces surprising results and changes in governments in an orderly way. In the last 10 years, online journalism has expanded in a big way in both of these countries. Yet, the mainstream media (well-established and commercially successful print and electronic media) continue to play a dominant role in shaping public opinion and influencing the outcome of elections; this is in contrast to what prevails in China and Russia. It must be said to the credit of Pakistani Journalists that despite severe handicaps, the Pakistani online alternate media (at least those that also focus on international affairs) has performed relatively better than its Indian counterpart. The biggest complaint against the Indian PM is that he has not bothered to meet the members of the Indian Press even once during his 9-year tenure. His so-called Mann ki Baat is perceived by sections of the Indian Population as ‘Monkey Baat’. Though I had voted for Narendra Modi’s leadership twice, in the last election I voted against his party, not so much because of his refusal to face the Indian Press, but because I perceived his government to be a great threat to Indian federalism. I did not think Mr Modi was worse than the previous government in the Protection of minorities and restriction on freedom of expression. In terms of Press Freedom, I believe that we still have a vibrant (at times, irresponsible) press. In terms of minority rights, though, I would feel that there is substantial scope for improvement (Can the other Indians eat their beef in peace? What the next 20 years are going to be?). I still believe Muslims in India are not persecuted as portrayed by Mr Imran Khan and of course Ms Sabrina Siddiqui et al. In any case, their position is better than the position of Hindus in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Islamic countries.

During his talk, Imran Khan never refers to Bharat, the Union of States aka India by any of these 2 names. He constantly uses the expression Hindustan. He openly declared that peace with India is not possible so long as Mr Modi and his party remain at the helm of affairs. He did not realize that this statement is sufficient reason for the Indian population to re-elect Modi again.

Recently, we regularly hear of cases of teenage Pakistani Hindu girls getting kidnapped and married to their Muslim kidnappers. These incidents are regularly followed up by a government enquiry headed by a sitting District Judge (Senior Trial Judge) who duly concludes always that the girl has fallen in love with her captors (Stockholm syndrome) and had voluntarily embraced Islam. On the other hand, there have been several cases in India where Indian men and women who fall in love with their Muslim counterparts adopt Islam. Very few Muslims change their religion or become irreligious as abandoning Islam for a spouse is not an option because Apostasy is punishable under Sharia. The recently released ‘The Kerala Story’, no doubt alarmingly exaggerated this phenomenon. Even today, notwithstanding their fears, we can see Muslims in all spheres of Indian public life and they achieve things not normally achieved by Hindus and Christians in Pakistani public life. It is in this context that one has to place the recent interaction that the Indian PM had with Ms Sabrina Siddiqui during the much-talked-about White House Conference. I quote her question below,

“India has long prided itself as the world’s largest democracy, but there are many human rights groups who say that your government has discriminated against religious minorities and sought to silence its critics.[Minority communities all over the world have this complaint] As you stand here in the East Room of the White House, where so many world leaders have made commitments to protecting democracy,[Patronising claiming the superior position of USA] what steps are you and your government willing to take to improve the rights of Muslims and other minorities in your country and [Modi’s answer will be Uniform Civil Code] to uphold free speech?” [Rahul Gandhi’s conviction is a blot on Indian Judiciary and not on Modi]

One must add here that Mr Modi had a very bad experience with the highly acclaimed Indian interviewer Mr Karan Thapar. He stopped the interview halfway when Mr Thapar aggrievedly and irritatingly insisted that he should apologise to Indian Muslims for the carnage that Muslims suffered post-Godhra riots. Thereafter, Mr Modi stopped giving interviews; occasionally, he has met select journalists controlled by government establishments for very rare interviews, wherein, the interviewers knew the Laxman Rekha that they should not cross. Looks like Ms Sabrina has taken the Karan Thapar route. But she has been treated better by Mr Modi. As a leader, Mr Modi is entitled to his choice of not granting any interviews when he believes that his “Mann Ki Baat” (I have stopped listening to this after the first 2 episodes) is the best method to communicating with his voters than through prejudiced journalists whose only purpose is only to increase TRP ratings (Target Rating Point, also Television Rating Point for televisions). In fact, another very “famous” Indian journalist Mr Arnab Goswami is being prosecuted for his efforts to manipulate the TRP ratings. He managed to escape and secure bail remarkably fast within a week, only because of his unabated prejudice in favour of the BJP. While it is true that some BJP-run states like UP are particularly cruel to Muslim Journalists (the case of the Kerala Journalist Mr Kappan), Muslims in several states such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Andra Pradesh, WB, Telangana continue to express what they feel about the BJP government and discharge their duties to the best of their abilities and enjoy freedom of expression like members of other religions. In fact, in some of the most educated states like Kerala and Goa, Christians apparently have no problem with BJP as a political party and the leadership of Narendra Modi. So is the case in Punjab where the Akaliddal is re-establishing a Political alliance with BJP. Captain Amarinder Singh, a former Congress minister known for his impeccable secular credentials, has no problem in joining BJP. Hence, I look at Ms Siddiqui’s question as a manifestation of her personal prejudice-an opportunity to irritate a Hindu Indian leader- thereby, wasting the only opportunity journalists had in the White House to ask questions on strengthening Indo-US relations. (For whatever reason, it was agreed that both the leaders will face only 1 question. Instead, they could have done away with the joint press conference.)

Actually, I split her question into 3 parts. The first 35 words are in the nature of a prefix to the question which contains an opinion that Modi’s government has discriminated against minorities. The next 23 words eulogise the White House and the USA as the place where global leaders have made commitments to protecting democracy. (The leaders should give assurance to their own populations) The final 28 words proceed on the footing that nothing is being done to improve the rights of Muslims in India and to uphold free speech. For some reason, she adds other minorities. Unlike her dubious compatriot Ms Ilhan Omar, she has not mentioned the other minorities by name. Indian Churches, particularly in Christian-dominant states having an educated population, support the BJP. Israel has gone on record to show that India is the only country in the world where Jews did not face any discrimination. Hence, Ms Sabrina Siddiqui has betrayed her religious prejudice and wasted the opportunity. I am not too sure who chose her as the representative of the members of the press who were present at the White House press conference. While I say that Ms Sabrina Siddiqui is entitled to her opinion (even if it is incorrect and contrary to the reality in India) and entitled to express the same (such rights are definitely available to everyone in India today), this indicates the pompous American sense of superiority over the rest of the world (which nationality it appears she has recently adopted).

Earlier, we had a journalist in India by the name Ms Rana Ayyub, her journalistic credentials are as enviable and accomplished as those of Ms Sabrina Siddiqui. She used the post-Godhra riots and the Bombay blasts as a crowdfunding opportunity but, unfortunately, failed to provide proper accounts of fair utilization of the funds collected. This resulted in her turning over the funds to the PMCARES fund in exchange for indemnity from prosecution or weak pursuit of the prosecution by the NIA. While I still uphold her right to ask the questions that she chooses, I still believe that these questions and attitudes are not going, in any way, to better the status of minorities or prevent the occasional acts of persecution that Muslims (only Muslims) face in India. Unfortunately, a majority of the Indian population cites Ms Rana Ayyub’s and Ms Sabrina Siddiqui’s imprudent and incorrect acts and words as a justification for keeping good secular Indian Muslims in their ‘proper place’. But then such journalists do not care for poor Indian Muslims. Like Ilhan Omar, they have their constituencies and they have to appease the public opinion of their constituencies. They won’t face any reaction and in fact, they reap political and economic dividends. Poor, not-so-literate Indian Muslims who get swayed by these views suffer because some of them still think they are right and show their reaction in a manner that further increases the mutual distance between religions. Time that journalists behaved more responsibly.