Tavleen Singh on the India Ideas Conclave incident

 

 

Somewhat belatedly, I find that my adventure at the first India Ideas Conclave in December 2014 (https://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2015/01/ideas-and-angst.html) seems to have been noticed by veteran journalist Tavleen Singh. In her book Modi Messiah. A Tale of Great Expectations (HarperCollins, Delhi 2020, p.223), she writes that the thinkfest

 

"began with a blessing from Sri Sri Ravi Shankar. I saw this as an indication that the India Foundation was not afraid of sending the message that it functioned in a country in which 80 per cent of the people were Hindu.”

 

It was indeed widely expected to be a Hindu gathering, with the caveat that most Hindus careful about their reputation say “Indian” when they mean “Hindu”. As for “80%”: in the usual manipulation of the definition of “Hindu”, this is a maximalist interpretation, including groups who have partly or wholly acquired the status of non-Hindu minority (Sikhs, Jains, Veerashaivas, the Sarna, Donyi Pollo and other tribals), or who are anti-Hindu though born Hindu (crypto-Christians, Naxalites, Urban Naxals a.k.a. secularists). But leave that for another discussion.

 

However:

 

“If this was indeed the plan it unraveled early that morning when a Belgian Indologist and Hindutva sympathizer called Koenraad Elst had to be sent home in disgrace because of his remark on Islam. It was not what he said about Islam that was wrong so much as the offensive manner in which he said it.”

 

The session in which I participated was a debate about the question whether Islamic terrorism, in particular the then-fresh atrocities committed by the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, was genuine Islam. My two debating partners, encouraged by the moderator, argued that it had nothing to do with Islam. This was obviously also the message that the organizers wanted to promote, which is why it is strange that they had invited me; apparently they hadn’t read me carefully. I argued that the IS or the Taliban knew Islam far better than any of those present and that they could easily hold their own in an Islamic court by showing how their actions were imitations of Mohammed’s model behaviour, the very basis of Islamic law. No Islamic judge could give a verdict that amounted to saying: “Mohammed was wrong.”

 

And speaking of “wrong”: what was deemed wrong about my performance was not “the offensive manner in which I said it” but very much “what I said about Islam”, and to which nobody there had a convincing answer. Nor does Tavleen Singh, even after having had a few years to think up one.

 

There was nothing wrong with the manner in which I spoke, which was quite good-humoured. Indeed that was precisely the indignant objection of one (self-declared Swiss) Islamophile’s objection during Q&A time: that I looked like having a good time linking the terrorists’ actions with Mohammed’s model behaviour. He must have had this image of fanatical foaming-at-the-mouth “Islamophobia” in his mind and became angry when I failed to live up to It. Looking back, there was indeed something humorous about how my adversaries in the debate were contorting themselves while I had the full force of scriptural authority on my side.

 

“A Muslim diplomat stood up halfway through Elst's speech and walked out. Ram Madhav, who was seated in the front row, intervened and the session was abruptly ended.”

 

Here she proves to be poorly informed. That the (to my knowledge: two West-Asian) Muslims present showed their displeasure, is a fact. But the session was not ended abruptly, nor was Ram Madhav publicly involved. After the session’s normal completion, and during an exceptionally enthusiastic applause from the audience, one of the organizers (if memory serves: Swapan Dasgupta) came on stage to apologize for what I had said. Everything went normal until late that evening, when two youngsters came to find me in my room to tell me the organizers wanted me to leave (indeed, they had already rebooked my airplane ticket). This was not “in disgrace” but because they reportedly feared someone could go to the police accusing me of disrupting religious harmony, a non-bailable offence.

 

“The next thing we knew was that Elst had been put back on a flight back to Belgium. The conference was intended to create a new idea of India but definitely not one in which there would be no room for Muslims."

 

Did anyone say that “there would be no room for Muslims” in India? Having written a lot about communal issues, I challenge Tavleen Singh to find any such utterance in my work. In particular, let her face the actual contents of what I said there and then, readily available: https://koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2014/12/the-gentle-cure-for-intolerance.html. Anyway, the topic in that debate was not what political conclusions to draw from the facts about Islam, but first to establish clearly what those facts are. After that, we can consider whether any practical implications follow from them.

Read more!

The Mumbai attack of November 2008

In better days, the RISA-list was open to dissident opinions. This one, of 28 November 2008, was very dissident though softly worded:

“Dear list,

“It's not going to do me any good, but someone has to do the dirty work of stating a fact that stares us all in the face but is not allowed to be mentioned in career-conscious company.”

            Then I quoted a list member based in Israel who wrote: "Here in Israel, as around the world, the press is very much occupied with the attack (...) As far as the domestic, this seems to lead to the Indian-Pakistani conflict, and Kashmir was already mentioned. As far as the international, this may relate to the 'International Jihad' and to groups associated with Al Qaida." And I added:

"There is also the internal Hindu-Muslim and India-Muslim conflict, invoked as justification in the manifesto of the Indian Mujahedin "explaining" their recent bomb attacks in Mumbai, Jaipur, Bangalore etc. etc. Though two prominent scholars at the SAMAJ conference in Paris in September 2008 described that manifesto as 'a work of genius', it was only a rehashing of the common litany in the secularist press bewailing the 'persecution' of Muslims in India. Outsiders notice how the inward-looking education of Muslim youth in Muslim schools (facilitated by their constitutional privilege of subsidized yet totally autonomous communal schools, a privilege denied to Hindus in the prevalent reading of Art.30) leads to their unemployability in the modern labour market; but the Muslim leadership, encouraged by the secularist media, prefers to deny its own responsibility and blame Muslim disadvantage on others. This mentality of resentment feeds terrorism, as indeed acknowledged in the Indian Mujahedin manifesto. Likewise, that the police more easily suspects Muslims and tends to associate them with terrorism is true, but not unrelated to their own actions (e.g. the Jamia Millia VC's recent refusal to cooperate with the police when some of his students were suspect).”

The Israel-based list member opined: "Apparently, the terrorists where looking for Americans and British citizens, and besides, the Chabad House was attacked." I replied:

"True, but let us not forget that there were the more usual Hindu and security forces targets also. This terror attack gets a lot more attention because of the foreigners involved as victims, but in scale it is not unusual. When the victims are merely Indian, and merely Hindu (the death roll in e.g. the latest Delhi attacks shows that the terrorists carefully located their bombs so as to kill as many Hindus and as few Muslims as possible), the media are not that interested.

“The common denominator is pretty obvious, viz. Muslim resentment against Infidel control of any Muslim land: Anglo-American in Iraq and Afghanistan, Zionist in "occupied Palestine", secularist (‘Hindu’) in Kashmir. This ties in with Islamic political doctrine as laid down through example by Mohammed himself. While all manner of ‘experts’ exhaust their creativity in inventing alternative explanations, the terrorists themselves (remember Mohammed Atta?) are explicit and unanimous about Islam as their sole motivation.

“Unlike ‘secularists’ who impose their own explanations on Muslim actions and disallow Muslims to speak for themselves, I respect Muslims and take their word for it.

“Incidentally, this denial of agency to Islam is not limited to 'secularists'. It is done by most people who try to avoid trouble, e.g. the latest statement of the Hindu Council of the UK condemns the terror attacks as 'not justified by any religion'. Academics are often far ahead of the rest in forging contrived explanations for simple facts, but in this case, even the meanest politician mouths the artful delusion that 'terrorists have no religion'.”

The Israel-based list member added: “I was struck, for example, about an article entitled ‘Attack may sway voters towards BJP’, that appeared in the Times of India on line.” I replied:

            “Well, that's the normal procedure in a democracy. The Indian government has failed in its central duty of providing security, so voters may consider voting the opposition to power.  Not that the terrorism toll was that much lower under BJP rule (1998-2004; attacks on Parliament buildings in Srinagar and Delhi, Godhra, Akshardham etc.), and even if it was, it may have had less to do with the government's policy than with the then less advanced terrorist technology and strategy."

He signed off: “With great sadness.” I ended:

"Well, sorry for pointing at the elephant in the room. I know it is taboo in these circles to mention the motive of the terrorists. But out of respect for the victims, I thought that naming and shaming the ideological culprit for their death is essential.

“Sharing your sadness,

“Dr. Koenraad Elst, unaffiliated scholar”.

Read more!