The West has stopped killing in the name of Christ - and now kills for progress, democracy, freedom. Islam kills in the name of Islam and Allah. Little difference. | Cartoonist Andy Davey; source & courtesy - thesun.co.uk | Click for image.
Indian burden …?
Irfan Ahmad, an Indian-Bihari, earlier at JNU, now with an Australian University, has now come out with a new version of White Man’s Burden.
Specially for India. Call it The Brown Man’s Burden.
Promoting the cause and interests of the Islāmic ‘world’, Irfan Ahmad writes how
West’s claim of spreading democracy in the Middle East is bogus. Against the West’s claims, it continually de-democratised one country after another. Like India, the world’s largest democracy which is largely disinterested in – and indirectly hostile to – democratic movements in Bhutan and Burma, the West has been largely hostile to genuine democracy in the Middle East so as to nurture its interests – geopolitical and strategic – by keeping the Mubaraks and the Shahs “stable”. (via How the West de-democratised the Middle East – Opinion – Al Jazeera English).
While Najib Mubarki works on inducing White Man’s Burden (and guilt), Irfan Ahmed has taken on himself to impose a Brown Man’s Burden.
For instance, Irfan Ahmad pushes the idea that it is Indian ‘Hindu’ responsibility to protect Lebanese Muslims from racist attacks in Christian Australia.
Big Brother know best
Surprising, that Irfan Ahmad cannot see that the problems of West Asia are a direct result of West’s assumption of White Man’s Burden in West Asia – as the ‘keeper’, saviour, benevolent authority.
Irfan Ahmad is wrong when he promotes the idea of India’s ‘responsibilities.’
Since when has it become India’s responsibility to be interested in or nurture democracy anywhere, as Irfan Ahmad tries to impute. India’s avowed and stated foreign policy goal has been non-interference.
Why assume that India Government knows best about what is good for Bhutan or Myanmar? There are some in India that believe that the Indian Government does know what is good for India itself! So, why impose, influence, direct, promote agenda in other countries.
To equate India with the West, on a campaign to keep West Asia unstable for the last 100 years, is at best, laughable.
Irfan’s two legs
The other leg of Irfan Ahmad’s thesis is the idea of ‘Hindu’ Burden as Keeper of Muslims in India.
Explaining reasons for radical Islam, Irfan Ahmad argues that ‘when secular democracy is responsive to the traditions and aspirations of its Muslim citizens, Muslims in turn embrace pluralism and democracy. But when democracy becomes majoritarian Muslims turn radical.’
In effect, Irfan Ahmad claims that it is Indian ‘Hindu’ responsibility to provide ‘democracy responsive to the traditions and aspirations’ of Indian Muslims.
I thought that the Partition of India made it clear that Indians Muslims will be their own keeper. So, where is the question of providing ‘democracy is responsive to the traditions and aspirations of its Muslim citizens’.
Or of ‘Hindu’ majoritarianism that Irfan Ahmad talks of?
Even though there are ongoing attempts to make the India State interfere in religious matters, as a country India is not a theological State. Hence there cannot be a role of the Indian State to care for Muslims, ‘Hindus’, etc.
India will take care of all Indians – and any criticism of India to take care of Indians is welcome. But Irfan Ahmad’s attempts to ‘impose’ a burden of Muslims on the Indian State are neither logical or acceptable.
Those who define that burden, can carry it.