[Prev][Next][Index]
Sonia Gandhi sponsored Muslim scholar calls Sita Mata a 'whore'
Rajiv Gandhi Foundation Scholar's
DEROGATORY REMARKS ABOUT SITA
Organiser, March 5, 1995, New Delhi
Our Special Correspondent
NEW DELHI: Highly derogatory remarks about Sita by a Muslim scholar who
was the main speaker at a seminar organised by the Nehru Memorial Museum
and Library here left Hindu participant's aghast. Some of those present
protested. Finding that the atmosphere was becoming tense, the Chairman
of the seminar abruptly adjourned the proceedings for lunch.
The seminar, held on Feb. 18, at Teen Murti House, pertained to 'West
Asia: Four Years after the Gulf War'. It was attended by over 60 Indian
scholars, a number of retired Indian diplomats, Naval officers, and heads
of missions of Iran, Iraq, Palestine, League of Arab States in India. It
was inaugarated by Shri. R.L. Bhatia, Minister of State for External
Affairs, who in his speech highlighted various aspects of India's
relations with the West Asian countries to-date.
The proceedings of the seminar were being conducted in a highly
intellectual atmosphere. Dr. Ahmed Mukkarram, a Resident Fellow of the
Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies, Rajiv Gandhi Foundation,
Jawahar Bhawan, New Delhi, who spoke on Islamic Fundamentalism in the
Gulf region, however tried to compare the feelings of Muslims for the
Prophet with those of Hindus for Sita if she were described as a "whore".
When some Hindu participants objected to the derogatory remarks, Dr.
Mukarram repeated them.
It will be worthwhile here to recount the sequence of the proceedings. In
his paper Dr. Mukarram described 'Islamic Fundamentalism" as a complex
phenomenon, and made reflections on it in respect of religiosity,
modernity, politics and economics as well as the concept of democracy in
the region. He opined that the fundamentalist movements have actually
helped the cause of democracy in the region.
In the course of discussion, Prof. B.R. Grover, former Director, Indian
Council of Historical Research, New Delhi pointed out distortions in Dr.
Mukarram's paper and commented that Islamic Fundamentalism was
essentially marked by intolerence and fanaticism and cited the example of
the issue of the Fatwa by the late Iranian President Khomeini against
Salman Rushdie on account of the latter's approach to the Islamic
interpretation in his book Satanic Verses. Prof. Grover further commented
that one might criticise or condemn Salman Rushdie or even proscribe his
book but for Khomeini to have put a price on his head was tantamount to
an act of intolerance and fundamentalism. Prof. Grover further remarked
that Islamic fundamentalism was by no means limited to the West Asian
countries as it had spread its tentacles to many other countries in Asia,
Africa and even East Europe.
Nearer home, he said the fatwa issued by the clerical order in Bangladesh
against Ms. Taslima Nasreen for having authored the book Lajja and the
harassment being caused to her was another instance. To this may be
added the most recent case of the award of capital punishment of two
persons at Lahore in Pakistan on grounds of blasphemy, one of whom is a
fourteen year young boy. Even their defence lady-lawyer was attacked and
injured by the fundamentalists in the premises of the Lahore High Court
and she has been obliged to go abroad for medical treatment. All this
affords a typical example of Islamic fundamentalism.
In response to Prof. Grover's observations, Shri A. Sheikh Attar,
Ambassador of Islamic Republic of Iran in India, in very polite terms
justified Khomeini's action on the plea that criticism of the personality
of Prophet Mohammed could not be tolerated. He added that criticism of
the Islamic percepts at the hands of a non-Muslim was one thing and that
by a Muslim himself quite another thing and that under no circumstances
criticism of the Holy Prophet by a Muslim could be tolerated. This, he
said, explained Khomeini's verdict against Sulman Rushdie.
In his final reply to the issues raised on his paper, Dr. Mukarram while
upholding the viewpoint of the Iranian Ambassador, gave an ill-conceived
example and said, "How would you (Hindus) react if someone calls Sita a
'whore'? Similarly, the Muslim cannot tolerate the criticism and remarks
about Prophet Mohammed", thereby justifying Khomeini's action against
Salman Rushdie.
These remarks about Sita led to a heated discussion. Dr. Sreedhar of the
Institute for Defence Analysis and Studies, New Delhi, explained that the
Hindu religion was quite liberal and tolerant of its criticism but the
analogy by the speaker about Sita was rather inappropriate. Thereupon,
Dr. Mukarram, in a highly objectionable tone, commented, "you can call
your mother (Sita) a whore but I will not call my mother a whore".
These remarks of the speaker about Site left the distinguished
participants aghast. Incensed at the highly insulting attitude on the
part of the speaker, Prof. Grover intervened and commented that it was
only in India, that the speaker had the courage to make such insolent
remarks, whearas in a country like Bangladesh, he would have attracted
punishment and met the same fate as Ms. Taslima Nasreen; in Pakistan, the
fate of the Christian Boys sentenced to death on account of blasphemy
and in West Asia or even in Europe, the fate of Salman Rushdie at the
hand of Khomeinis.
Prof Grover further recalled that how only a couple of years back, the
SAHMAT exhibition installed right in the Nehru Memorial Museum which
portrayed Shri Ram Chandra and Sita as siblings, was dismantled by the
Delhi Administration on the intervention of Shri Shivraj Patil, the
N'able Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Thereafter, the particular objectionable
panel was removed from the exhibits but even when the case was
sub-judice, the organisers of the SAHMAT had been publishing pamphlets
and articles in defence of their earlier action for the incorporation of
the controversial Ram-katha panel showing Ram-Sita as siblings.
Now the present speaker, Dr. Mukarram, had gone much further in maligning
'Sita Mata' in an allegorical manner. But all this could happen only in
India and nowhere else in the world.
This issue was joined by some other participants, who upheld the liberal
approach of the Hindu philosophy and way of life vis-a-vis the stand
taken by Dr. Mukarram in his analysis of Islam. Another participant Miss
Anita Grover made a fine and valid distinction between the concepts of
religiosity and fundamentalism. She commented that there was nothing
wrong in being a religious person and a faithful follower of one's own
faith. But it was fundamentalism with all its rigidity and bigotry
resulting in intolerance which was being criticised the world over. She
also pointed out that the tone and tenor of the main speaker and the
uncalled for remarks about Sita Mata were improper and unworthy of such
an academic seminar and had rather spoiled its atmosphere which had been
otherwise very well organised.
Ultimately, when Prof. M.M. Puri (Chandigarh), who was in the Chair,
found the atmosphere of the seminar very tense and, in order to avoid any
untoward incident, he dissolved the seminar for lunch.
During lunch break, apropros talk with Miss Grover, Prof. Puri conceded
the fact that the attitude of the main speaker, Dr. Mukarram, had not
only been overbearing but unworthy of a scholar in having made
unnecessary and uncalled for reference to Sita Mata and her character.
-----------------
