Indian democracy has an ugly side

[BanglaBhoot]

“A billion people, in a functioning democracy. Ain’t that something.” George W. Bush’s awestruck musings on the wonders of Indian democracy will be echoed all around the world this week.

Despite a sharp economic slowdown and a series of destabilising terrorist attacks, India’s 420m voters have just calmly voted the Congress party back into government, with a much increased majority.

In western capitals, admiration for the maturity of Indian democracy will be mixed with relief. There were fears that a government led by the rightwing BJP would take a more confrontational line with Pakistan – widening the conflict in south Asia in new and dangerous ways. Investors also seem to be impressed. The stock market shot up 17 per cent in the wake of Congress’s victory.

Political scientists have spent years demonstrating that democracy rarely survives in poor countries. India is a triumphant exception to this rule. Despite the fact that a quarter of its population live below the poverty line, the country has been a functioning democracy for almost the entire period since independence in 1947.

Indian democracy is indeed a wonder to behold. But this fact can lead to some unwarranted starry-eyed conclusions about the country. At this moment of euphoria, four common notions about Indian democracy deserve to be doused with a little scepticism.

First, it should be remembered that the country’s democracy is not always a beautiful sight. Manmohan Singh, the 76-year-old prime minister who has just won re-election, is a charmingly intellectual and courtly figure. But while Mr Singh is an impeccable frontman, the country’s politics has a much sleazier and more disreputable side.

In most countries when politicians are slammed as “criminals” this is simply vulgar abuse. In India, it is often the literal truth. The British public, currently hyperventilating about expenses fiddles in the UK parliament, might be interested to know that 128 of the 543 members of the last Indian parliament had faced criminal charges or investigations, including 83 cases of murder. In a poor society, gangsters can and do use muscle and money to force their way into parliament.

Second, just because India is a democracy, it does not follow that it will automatically side with fellow-democracies around the world. Mr Bush’s interest in Indian democracy was more than purely intellectual. The former president made a conscious decision to form a strategic alliance with India – and to cut the country a special deal over nuclear weapons – because he felt that democracies should be natural allies.

The Americans are carefully building a new special relationship with democratic India, partly to counterbalance authoritarian China. It is certainly true that relations between the US and India have been getting steadily warmer, driven by commerce, Indian immigration to America, the English language and – to a degree – common values.

But India is a major power with its own interests and its own distinct take on the world. It will not automatically fall into line with western policy, whether on sanctions against Iran or a world trade deal. And if realpolitik dictates, India is perfectly capable of cosying up to a dictatorship, such as the Burmese military junta.

The sleazy side of Indian democracy has led to a third common notion – popular in the authoritarian parts of Asia: the idea that democracy imposes a sort of tax on India. For many years, it was held that India suffered from a “Hindu rate of growth” because of its inefficient government. Growth in recent years, which has increased to an average of 9 per cent, should have put paid to that idea. But it is still true that, for all the virtues of its political system, Indian governance has failed hundreds of millions of people. Rates of poverty and illiteracy are much higher in democratic India than in authoritarian China.

Euphoria about modern India has led to a fourth mistaken idea: the notion that democracy has given the country a deep and unshakable stability. It is certainly true that the political future of China looks more uncertain and alarming than that of India, Asia’s other great subcontinental nation. But India still faces serious threats to its internal stability. The Indian Premier League is a new cricket tournament that has demonstrated the country’s growing wealth and cultural power by drawing in the best players from all over the world. However, the threat of terrorism is now so severe that this month’s tournament had to be relocated to South Africa. The country’s parliament and most prestigious hotels have come under attack in recent years.

While terrorism can be blamed on outsiders, India is also facing a serious internal insurrection. The notion of Maoist guerrillas roaming the countryside sounds like it belongs to another age – and is certainly at odds with the image of a modern India of commuter airlines and high technology. But over the past five years the Naxal insurgency has grown in strength – attacks on trains, mines and industrial sites are on the rise.

It is indeed marvellous that a country that is so large and so relatively poor can manage a peaceful, democratic transition. The new Indian government should also be able to use its stronger majority to renew the process of economic reform. But there are still some unappealing realities just behind the beautiful facade of Indian democracy.

FT.com / Columnists / Gideon Rachman - Indian democracy has an ugly side

 

[booo]

the glass is half empty. isn't it?

 

[muse]

I don't like the title of the thread either -- the question is wonderfuly complex and multifaceted, it's difficult and certain premature to come to such conclusions:



Set the poll rolling India's Muslims



Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Farzana Versey

My cell phone and inbox are filled with cheesy messages. "Communal forces have been defeated. Progress and peace are in the offing. God is great. Jai ho!" It isn't the BJP defeat that bothers me as much as the Congress victory. For, we are being fed these false images of a young India, an India on the move, an India that is secular. How different is it from the 'India Shining' baloney?

The messages like the one I mentioned are mostly from progressive Indian Muslims who blatantly play the communal card, forcing mullahs to walk with them on peace rallies. They don't even realise the silliness of their stand. Who stopped peace and progress while the non-communal government was in power? And was God not great when the NDA was at the Centre?

The worst part is the assumption that communal forces have been defeated. Take a look at the candidates put up. Why were rookies chosen? Because the majority of the electorate from those areas were from a particular caste or community. Besides that, every religious leader will be wooed. The tendency to jump the gun is opportunistic. The rally-wallah Musalmans know exactly which cause to espouse and when. They will join in issues which have international appeal – Palestine, Iraq, Mumbai attacks. How many take out morchas for Dalits, or those killed by Naxalites, or in Malegaon or Bhiwandi blasts?

They get thrilled when local corporators visit the slums that were demolished only because the star of 'Slumdog Millionaire' lives there; they get excited about an activist who lands up wherever the cameras are wearing a bindi to show how secular she is. And we have had the disgusting sight of a man whose house was burned down during the Gujarat riots sit before a TV panel and tell the audience to move on. Why? He is a rich.

That is the reason I think the Indian Muslim reaction is kneejerk. Narendra Modi is not a spent force; he may be a regional leader but that is his strength. He has managed to consolidate his position in such a manner that even Muslim businessmen are talking about economic growth. That is all they are interested in. Modi spoke about fifty million Gujaratis without mentioning religion. It will be his smart card for years to come.

In fact, the BJP's defeat will boost his position. While L K Advani is a statesman without a state, Modi will work his way through home ground. And nothing will happen to him. With vultures already preying on the party leadership position, Advani will have to deal with his own creation. He thought Modi would be a domesticated pet who could act as watchdog to warn visitors. The leash, alas, was too long.

The handful of the 250 million Muslims can continue to live in their canny paradise, but they have no right to make fools of those who do not have a choice or a voice.

When Uma Bharti had the gumption to declare before the elections that she and the senior BJP leaders did not know who demolished the Babri Masjid, there were no rallies by these so-called liberal Muslims demanding an explanation. How many bothered to collect the relevant data which is easily accessible and put it forward?

When there were questions asked about certain lies by NGOs in Gujarat, why did these Muslims not come forward and provide facts and figures or ask their own questions? How many of them will speak to the new government about expediting these cases? Or will they only look for their chance of getting a Rajya Sabha seat?

When the Darul Uloom issued a fatwa asking Muslims to vote, why did they not tell the religious organisation to stop interfering in the business of the state even if they were responding to the queries raised by the devout?

Religion and progress are not mutually exclusive; in fact, it is the most potent combination. You can sell faith faster than a burger. With extra cheese and mayo.

As long as this continues, and political leaders go around various places of worship, and you hear duas and shlokas on TV screens with a voice-over luring you with, "If you want this as your caller tune then SMS us", we will remain a communal country.


The writer is a Mumbai-based columnist and author of A Journey Interrupted: Being Indian in Pakistan. Email: kaaghaz.kalam@ gmail.com

 

[third eye]

Don't we ALL have an ugly side ???

Another rag pickers item.

 

[Nemesis]

The first article has a silly title. About criminals in politics, yes 128 sitting MPs have criminal cases against them. But Indians here will be happy to know that the worst five criminal offenders - or to use a completely frank term underworld dons - during the last Parliament have been voted out of power. Its a start, hopefully things can steadily improve from here.

Muse, your article is interesting, Liberal Muslims in India (and in Pakistan) don't really raise their voice for any issue that effects them. They'll go to rallies criticizing Israel or Americas invasion of Iraq (as is their right) but how about raising a voice against the morons who are supposedly their representatives? For example, the Uniform Civil Code is a demand that most secular Indians would agree with, however, we don't get to hear liberal Muslims demanding that the All India Muslim Personal law board gets disbanded. Unfortunate.

 

[apostate]

3v3ryon3 dus but dats not somet u shud try to accept its somet that should b tri3d to solve ! otherwise there will b an ugly side to everything

why so l33t speak ?

 

[Neo]

Number of Muslim MPs down​

NEW DELHI: The number of Muslim MPs elected to the new Lok Sabha has dropped to 28, in contrast to the 34 in the previous parliament. In Uttar Pradesh that sends most MPs (80 out of 543) having overwhelming Muslim population, only seven MPs made it to the parliament. From Maharashtra both the Muslim stalwarts Union Minister Abdul Rehman Antulay and Azam Pansare, respectively from Congress and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) lost polls. In Muslim dominated regions of Malegaon and Aurangabad, a number of Muslim candidates also failed to secure any seats. Karnataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Orissa are the other major states that despite having a sizeable Muslim population failed to send any Muslim MP’s to the parliament. As many as 780 Muslim candidates had contested the election, most of them as independents or representatives of non-descript parties.

 

[Skeptic]

Number of Muslim MPs down​

NEW DELHI: The number of Muslim MPs elected to the new Lok Sabha has dropped to 28, in contrast to the 34 in the previous parliament. In Uttar Pradesh that sends most MPs (80 out of 543) having overwhelming Muslim population, only seven MPs made it to the parliament. From Maharashtra both the Muslim stalwarts Union Minister Abdul Rehman Antulay and Azam Pansare, respectively from Congress and Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) lost polls. In Muslim dominated regions of Malegaon and Aurangabad, a number of Muslim candidates also failed to secure any seats. Karnataka, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Orissa are the other major states that despite having a sizeable Muslim population failed to send any Muslim MP’s to the parliament. As many as 780 Muslim candidates had contested the election, most of them as independents or representatives of non-descript parties.

I would not read too much into that statistic, though I understand its importance for Pakistani consumption. Indian muslims have never depended on muslim leaders to lead the way for them. Their loyalty, historically has been with congress and s recent association with Samajwadi Party (SP). This time Kalyan Singh (CM of UP while Babri masjid was demolished) moved to SP and this caused the muslim vote to return to congress in UP, as the secular options were limited (BSP failed to establish its relevance at national level).

Congress has traditionally had non-muslim leaders promoting the muslim cause. I see more a sense of euphoria for congress govt. in Muslim section rather than disappointment of having lesser number of muslim in the Parliament.

But I understand the importance of news in Pakistan, the primary reason for partition itself was the belief that only muslims can represent muslim cause. We denied the logic then, we deny that logic now.

 

[rubyjackass]

I don't like the title of the thread either -- the question is wonderfuly complex and multifaceted, it's difficult and certain premature to come to such conclusions:



Set the poll rolling India's Muslims



Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Farzana Versey

My cell phone and inbox are filled with cheesy messages. "Communal forces have been defeated. Progress and peace are in the offing. God is great. Jai ho!" It isn't the BJP defeat that bothers me as much as the Congress victory. For, we are being fed these false images of a young India, an India on the move, an India that is secular. How different is it from the 'India Shining' baloney?

The messages like the one I mentioned are mostly from progressive Indian Muslims who blatantly play the communal card, forcing mullahs to walk with them on peace rallies. They don't even realise the silliness of their stand. Who stopped peace and progress while the non-communal government was in power? And was God not great when the NDA was at the Centre?

The worst part is the assumption that communal forces have been defeated. Take a look at the candidates put up. Why were rookies chosen? Because the majority of the electorate from those areas were from a particular caste or community. Besides that, every religious leader will be wooed. The tendency to jump the gun is opportunistic. The rally-wallah Musalmans know exactly which cause to espouse and when. They will join in issues which have international appeal – Palestine, Iraq, Mumbai attacks. How many take out morchas for Dalits, or those killed by Naxalites, or in Malegaon or Bhiwandi blasts?

They get thrilled when local corporators visit the slums that were demolished only because the star of 'Slumdog Millionaire' lives there; they get excited about an activist who lands up wherever the cameras are wearing a bindi to show how secular she is. And we have had the disgusting sight of a man whose house was burned down during the Gujarat riots sit before a TV panel and tell the audience to move on. Why? He is a rich.

That is the reason I think the Indian Muslim reaction is kneejerk. Narendra Modi is not a spent force; he may be a regional leader but that is his strength. He has managed to consolidate his position in such a manner that even Muslim businessmen are talking about economic growth. That is all they are interested in. Modi spoke about fifty million Gujaratis without mentioning religion. It will be his smart card for years to come.

In fact, the BJP's defeat will boost his position. While L K Advani is a statesman without a state, Modi will work his way through home ground. And nothing will happen to him. With vultures already preying on the party leadership position, Advani will have to deal with his own creation. He thought Modi would be a domesticated pet who could act as watchdog to warn visitors. The leash, alas, was too long.

The handful of the 250 million Muslims can continue to live in their canny paradise, but they have no right to make fools of those who do not have a choice or a voice.

When Uma Bharti had the gumption to declare before the elections that she and the senior BJP leaders did not know who demolished the Babri Masjid, there were no rallies by these so-called liberal Muslims demanding an explanation. How many bothered to collect the relevant data which is easily accessible and put it forward?

When there were questions asked about certain lies by NGOs in Gujarat, why did these Muslims not come forward and provide facts and figures or ask their own questions? How many of them will speak to the new government about expediting these cases? Or will they only look for their chance of getting a Rajya Sabha seat?

When the Darul Uloom issued a fatwa asking Muslims to vote, why did they not tell the religious organisation to stop interfering in the business of the state even if they were responding to the queries raised by the devout?

Religion and progress are not mutually exclusive; in fact, it is the most potent combination. You can sell faith faster than a burger. With extra cheese and mayo.

As long as this continues, and political leaders go around various places of worship, and you hear duas and shlokas on TV screens with a voice-over luring you with, "If you want this as your caller tune then SMS us", we will remain a communal country.


The writer is a Mumbai-based columnist and author of A Journey Interrupted: Being Indian in Pakistan. Email: kaaghaz.kalam@ gmail.com

Nice to have a differing voice. Always good for a healthy democracy. We need voices that warn us from the dangers we overlook in our daily life.
Though I do not agree with the definition of a communal country given by Farzana Versey.

 

[muse]

Ruby

What kind of a piece was it that Farzana presented? Was it an a "persuasion" piece? If it was a persuasion, was she successful in her contengtion? Did she offer convincing evidence to support her contention ??


Give the devil his due - Farzana has both technical prowess and talent and she believes inand has a pretty good understanding of the things she writes about --So, what are we to make of your

do not agree with the definition of a communal country given by Farzana Versey

Have you presented us evidence , have you tried to persuade us to your point of view? Had you done this what contribution would it have to our underdstanding of the issue, especially in the light of

We need voices that warn us from the dangers we overlook in our daily life

.

 

[Skeptic]

Ruby

What kind of a piece was it that Farzana presented? Was it an a "persuasion" piece? If it was a persuasion, was she successful in her contengtion? Did she offer convincing evidence to support her contention ??

Muse, I think the article was more of expression of her opinion than a persuasion piece. We respect the opinion and we understand the insecurities, but to be a "persuasion piece" It'd need to include some social proof and some commitment backed with consistency. She does not.

Give the devil his due - Farzana has both technical prowess and talent and she believes inand has a pretty good understanding of the things she writes about --So, what are we to make of your

I would respectfully differ again about her understanding of the issue. Talent, she has in plenty but technical poweress are not demonstrated, atleast in this piece.

Take a look at the candidates put up. Why were rookies chosen? Because the majority of the electorate from those areas were from a particular caste or community.

Here she has it terribly off target. The criteria for candidate selection will always remain winnability of the candidate. The caste plays a role, but only when a party does not have a winning candidate. Example - Rampur: Majority muslim area. Congress fields Noor Bano, Samajwadi Party - Jayaprada. Here congress leans on the religion because they lack a strong candidate. Jayaprada is popular and fielded by SP which generally leans on muslim vote and wins.

Besides that, every religious leader will be wooed.

I can't find any instance of that happening.

The rally-wallah Musalmans know exactly which cause to espouse and when. They will join in issues which have international appeal – Palestine, Iraq, Mumbai attacks. How many take out morchas for Dalits, or those killed by Naxalites, or in Malegaon or Bhiwandi blasts?

Here she lacks consistency. She weaves between 3 different issues - Dalits, Hindu Extrimists and Naxalites and wants define the role of Muslims in them. They are very different problems but I dont see how Naxalites and Dalit issues entice muslims to bring out morcha.

They get thrilled when local corporators visit the slums that were demolished only because the star of 'Slumdog Millionaire' lives there; they get excited about an activist who lands up wherever the cameras are wearing a bindi to show how secular she is. And we have had the disgusting sight of a man whose house was burned down during the Gujarat riots sit before a TV panel and tell the audience to move on. Why? He is a rich.

No they also get excited when the people responsible for malegaon blast are identified and put behind bars, without any hue and cry from their wannabe brothers from across the border. They are excited because a person from minority is heading the govt. They are excited because Gujrat issue is still raised in media and the investigations are not stopped because the perpetrators are politically strong and financially rich.

Narendra Modi is not a spent force; he may be a regional leader but that is his strength. He has managed to consolidate his position in such a manner that even Muslim businessmen are talking about economic growth. That is all they are interested in. Modi spoke about fifty million Gujaratis without mentioning religion.

Why would anyone be worried if Muslim businessmen talk about growth. Why rejection of hindutva forces by the masses across country not reduce stature of it poster boy - Narendra Modi. Will India be secular only when a Chief minister will not refer to his state as single entity but call out by their religion and caste?

In fact, the BJP's defeat will boost his position. While L K Advani is a statesman without a state, Modi will work his way through home ground. And nothing will happen to him. With vultures already preying on the party leadership position, Advani will have to deal with his own creation. He thought Modi would be a domesticated pet who could act as watchdog to warn visitors. The leash, alas, was too long.

BJP will emerge stronger - HOW? they lost last elections by a narrow margin, this time they were beaten comprehensively - Do we need a analyst to see the trend?? Rest is plain speculation, one can write exactly the opposite with equal authority.

When Uma Bharti had the gumption to declare before the elections that she and the senior BJP leaders did not know who demolished the Babri Masjid, there were no rallies by these so-called liberal Muslims demanding an explanation. How many bothered to collect the relevant data which is easily accessible and put it forward?

The entire Ram Mandir Issue was put on a back burner by BJP and it'd be hard to find any major rally where it was braught up during the campaign. It was a complete non issue for Hindua as well as Muslims. BJP started fighting on the plank of "Sadak, paani aur Bijli" went onto Internal security, leadership and finally on the issue of Black money and handling of CBI. Mandir was completely out of picture.

When the Darul Uloom issued a fatwa asking Muslims to vote, why did they not tell the religious organisation to stop interfering in the business of the state even if they were responding to the queries raised by the devout?

Govt. is leading a drive to bring people to vote. If Darul Uloom does so, that too when questioned, it hardly demands an action from Govt. Actions should be taken against those who tell people not too vote rather than who do.

Religion and progress are not mutually exclusive; in fact, it is the most potent combination. You can sell faith faster than a burger. With extra cheese and mayo.

This is the really confusing part. Looks more like an advertisement for BJP (Religion with Progress) rather than anything else.

As long as this continues, and political leaders go around various places of worship, and you hear duas and shlokas on TV screens with a voice-over luring you with, "If you want this as your caller tune then SMS us", we will remain a communal country.

Is it a requirement for Politicians to be atheist? Do we stop all the cell phone companies from selling stuff? Is that the sign of a Secular country? Not only shlokas but hadiths from Quran were also available. They are not state sponsored.

Complete article is representing her personal opinion, but for a authentic piece, she has not put down enough facts, but some incoherent rant.

 

[muse]

Ok - excellent, however; lets open it up:

to be a "persuasion piece" It'd need to include some social proof and some commitment backed with consistency. She does not.

Ok, so you see it as an opinin piece and for you to regard it as a persuasion piece, you would have wanted her to cite studies done by social scientists?

Talent, she has in plenty but technical poweress are not demonstrated, atleast in this piece.

Ok, but how have you backed up your statement? You think the piece is not put together well, her paragraphs are not well crafted? She does not move with ease from one idea to the next? What?

I can't find any instance of that happening

.

Indeed, which must mean it did not happen? I think you could have done a better job on this point.

OK, to substance - so your point is that the political melieu is not communal ? if I have understood you correctly, do you not thnk some of the positions you take can be used to suggest that Farzana is correct in her contention that indeed the overwhelming sense is that communal is the best description?
Consider:

She weaves between 3 different issues - Dalits, Hindu Extrimists and Naxalites and wants define the role of Muslims in them.They are very different problems but I dont see how Naxalites and Dalit issues entice muslims to bring out morcha

Look, here you are conceding the reality Farzana not only asserts exists but is meaningful to her position.

What we can say with a greater measure of certainlty is that the situation is very complex and that to suggest that a single statement can describe it is unreasonable.

 

[Skeptic]

Ok - excellent, however; lets open it up:

Thanks. Sure, will be interesting.

Ok, so you see it as an opinin piece and for you to regard it as a persuasion piece, you would have wanted her to cite studies done by social scientists?

To regard it as a persuasion piece, she'd have to prove her opinion and to persuade people about correctness of her vision. This I believe she fails to do. Social proof does not refer to studies and data but examples in society, which are emulated by others. In addition to this I mentioned commitment backed with consistency. She demonstrates the commitment but the consistency is lacking. eg. last two paragraphs and explained above.

Ok, but how have you backed up your statement? You think the piece is not put together well, her paragraphs are not well crafted? She does not move with ease from one idea to the next? What?

Again the same as above, inconsistency in though flow, incoherence in ideas and her distorted definition of secular / Non Communal society.

Indeed, which must mean it did not happen? I think you could have done a better job on this point.

Indeed, I could have. This was such a baseless statement, I could not comprehend having a debate over a non existent phenomenon. Some people even like having debates over the influence of martian invasion, I am not one of those....

OK, to substance -

If you permit, I'd love to:

so your point is that the political melieu is not communal ? if I have understood you correctly, do you not thnk some of the positions you take can be used to suggest that Farzana is correct in her contention that indeed the overwhelming sense is that communal is the best description?

Look, here you are conceding the reality Farzana not only asserts exists but is meaningful to her position.

I could have explained / structured the part better. Just thought it might become too lengthy to hold interest. To understand the complex equation, I hope you have a fair understanding of Indian politics. "Rally wallah musalman" are the Muslims who she thinks are politically active and claim to represent the muslim face. I am against the use of this term itself to begin with. Also, the paragraph shows that Muslims are scared to raise voice for causes that are most important but make a dummy demonstration of issues with no local relevance which is not the case. Shafiqur Rahman Burq ( Babri Action Committee), Maudud Mohammed Madani (Guy confronting Musharraf in recent India Today Conclave) and Shahid Siddiqui are three examples of the kind of people she fails to see. All three are leaders in BSP - which promotes the interests of Dalits most prominently.

Burq- Prominently addresses a very contentious issue for the majority segment

Madani - Always promotes more inclusion of muslims in mainstream

Shahid Siddiqui - Left SP to join over Nuclear Deal

And they are all very vocal about Dalit issue (Naxalites are not very influencial in their area of operations)

There are several more examples if you want me to quote.

What we can say with a greater measure of certainlty is that the situation is very complex

Agree to the part that situation is very complex and I am in no way saying that things are perfect. No sir they are not. But things are not as bad as depicted by Farzana, simply because she herself is not sure what she wants.

A very important misconception in our part of world the perception that Secularism is the antonym for communalism, which is not the case. Communalism in Indian perspective means - religion / ethnicity-based sectarianism and secularism means state / Govt being independent of religion.

Communalism - yes it is a reality of Indian politics, but it has not made India a communal country. Likewise, secularism is part if Indian constitution, but that not make India a flawlessly secular country.

to suggest that a single statement can describe it is unreasonable.

I am not trying to describe it in a single statement but Farzana is:

As long as this continues, and political leaders go around various places of worship, and you hear duas and shlokas on TV screens with a voice-over luring you with, "If you want this as your caller tune then SMS us", we will remain a communal country.

This part I find specially vague and illogical.

 

[muse]

Thank you for that - I have picked up on a point that you did not mean to suggest - but lets put it out and see if you can deal with it in a persuasive manner:

You referred to Burq- Madani - Shahid Siddiqui - Farzana says the so called secular continue to appeal to the mullah/Maulana types -- of the three names who have mentioned, Madani I know is a mullah, Burg is a mullah type but what of Siddiqui? Is he affiliated with religious oufits?

 

[Skeptic]

Thank you for that - I have picked up on a point that you did not mean to suggest - but lets put it out and see if you can deal with it in a persuasive manner:

You referred to Burq- Madani - Shahid Siddiqui - Farzana says the so called secular continue to appeal to the mullah/Maulana types -- of the three names who have mentioned, Madani I know is a mullah, Burg is a mullah type but what of Siddiqui? Is he affiliated with religious oufits?

No, He does not. Omar Abdullah is the latest Poster boy. There is a strong wave asking for cabinet seat for him.