Like majority of the Muslim populations in India as noted by Sachar Committee, even in Hyderabad city, which was the centre of Nizam rule, Muslims are abysmally poor and backward. The Muslim community of Hyderabad has a distinct regional identity with their food, dress, aesthetic sense and even dialect, quite different from other Muslims of India. After the Bristish India was partition into India and Pakistan, and Hyderabad was annexed by India, the Muslims of this richest princely state of India lost their privileged position and a significant portion of the community migrated to other counties. Muslims trained in Nizam’s legal system began to feel the narrowing of the prospects due to change in the court language from Urdu to English. The Hyderabad city presently is generally classified into old city and the new city. Muslims in Hyderabad largely inhabit the Old city part of the Hyderabad city, which tells a story of exploitation and stands out in sharp contrast to the new city. Though the information technology and biotechnology boom has brought people from different parts of the country to the new city of Hyderabad and gives outsiders the impression of Hyderabad as a flourishing metropolis but the Muslim population largely has not been able to get benefited from the highly praised potential of their native city. Though the old city part of Hyderabad has a rich past, but, its present is murky. The old city is poor, backward, lacking in basic civic amenities and divided into areas where some pockets are entirely Muslim-dominated, others have a mixed Hindu-Muslim population. It is disputes over temples and mosques, graveyards and religious processions that determine the politics here. The discrimination is meted out to almost all public utilities like drinking water, electricity, education or other civic amenities such as parks, cinema theatres etc.

Most of the Muslim children in Hyderabad are in no position to progress in any front given the deplorable condition of schools. The unconcerned politics, bureaucratic structures has deeply infected primary education scenario of Muslims in Hyderabad. Muslim minorities are lagging even behind the weaker sections and backward classes. The presence of Muslim undergraduate and postgraduate students in reputed colleges and universities of Hyderabad is proportionately nominal. Given the widespread notion of role of Madrasas in the lives of Muslims, only a miniscule section of parents in Hyderabad prefer to send their children to Madrasas. There is dearth of facilities for teaching Urdu and other subjects through Urdu medium. The lack of proper English education system among Muslims of Hyderabad is widespread. Most of the Muslim students in Hyderabad lack access to computers.

Compared to other Socio-Religious Communities, Hyderabad Muslims have a considerably lower representation in both government as well as private sector. The level of Muslim employment compared to their proportionate population is scarce. Similarly Muslim participation in professional and management cadres is quite low. Dropouts are high among Muslims of Hyderabad. Most of the schools in Muslim areas are running in rental buildings. The encroachment of government land continues unabated. The fate of Urdu schools is much more pitiable.

Due to meagre chances of getting employed in their native place, most Muslims of Hyderabad consider working in Gulf as a preferable option. The major occupations of Muslims of Hyderabad include petty traders, artisans, small repairing centers or workshops, etc.

The current economic condition of Muslims in Hyderabad can be improved only if they can be provided legitimate support by state and private agencies. On the contrary to that, areas of Muslim concentration in Hyderabad have been marked by many banks as ‘negative’ or ‘red’ zones where giving loans is not advisable.

The high costs of health care confronts majority of poverty stricken Muslims of Hyderabad. Most of the Muslim population in Hyderabad is relatively uninsured. The areas peopled by Muslims lack proper health care facilities.

The public transport in the old city of Hyderabad is fast shrinking. Given the narrow roads in the old city of Hyderabad, there is a high increase in transport, leading to traffic problems and pollution. Only one or two bus stations are effectively operating in the old city.

The ghost of communal uprising affected Hyderabad in early 1940’s and ever since the city has encountered several clashes at regular intervals. Several times the city has been brought under curfew following large scale violence in the city. This communal milieu of the city attained new heights in 1990’s in the time of Channa Reddy government. Hundreds of people including children were butchered by rampaging mobs. After a mob of Hindu zealots destroyed the sixteenth century Babri Masjid on 6 December 1992, the incident had cataclysmic impact on the relation between Hindus- Muslims in the Hyderabad city. Thus Hyderabad, especially old city part of the city continues to be one of the tension points, with high security presence during ‘sensitive’ times like the Ganesh festival, Eid Milad, Bonalu, Ramzan, and the 6th of December.

Hyderabad Muslim youth have remained most vulnerable victims of this state of affairs in Hyderabad. This perpetual experience of communal tension has over the last decade mostly affected Muslim youth of Hyderabad and has put them in a colossal quandary. Several youth in Hyderabad have found themselves automatically and falsely accused of terrorism. Muslim youth in Hyderabad are seen with suspicion by the police and linked to almost all terror activities if any, in the city. In 2007 Mecca Masjid blast Hyderabad police launched a mop-up operation against local Muslim boys. Hundreds of Muslim youth were booked related to Mecca Masjid blast case and were tortured only for being Muslims. In a span of two weeks, over a dozen of innocent Muslim boys were picked up by the police and were subjected to third degree tortures. As now it has been established that the right wing Hindu militants were behind the Mecca Masjid blast, it has brought back into spotlight the ingrained discrimination against Muslim in the criminal justice system.

Most of the youth our team interviewed cited examples of Muslims being attacked in media and other forms of public discourse, while other religions with similar practices are not attacked or attacked with less vehemence. The common example that was given in this regard was that of Mecca Masjid blast case.

In these circumstances, most of the interviewed Hyderabad Muslim youth sees in India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) a saviour. All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) is considered to be the chief political party for Muslims in Hyderabad. The party has strong grasp over the Muslim population of Hyderabad and claims to be represent their interests. Majority of the interviewed youth have unfathomable belief in AIMIM and consider the party as a real armament of Muslims in Hyderabad. Some youth even look forward to see this regional party to flourish into a full-grown national party. Even though some youth admit the failure of AIMIM in developing the socio-economic conditions of Muslims compared but they give AIMIM the credit for their success in ensuring the safety of Muslim youth in Hyderabad.

A major issue thus afflicting Muslim youth in Hyderabad is that of enforced ghettoization. Muslim youth in Hyderabad see discrimination in social, religious, and political spheres of life. The lack of education in particular hurts these Muslims youth most. Most of these Muslim youth feel that Muslims are being singled out for discrimination and held to a different standard than other religions because of deep rooted prejudice and the growing ideology of majoritarianism.

Recently I was asked by one friend of mine who works as a reporter in a ‘reputed’ regional Telugu daily, the reasons for ‘gun culture’ and ‘stone pelting culture’ in the Indian administered Kashmir valley. “Why is it that people of Kashmir don’t peacefully complain about their problems to the government?” I replied to him that it is the cynicism and the distrust of the people with the system. My friend didn’t ask me what actually that meant. I wanted to explain to him about the life of common people in Kashmir, the diabolical role of Indian army, their impunity for human rights violations. I wanted to explain to him how a knock on the door late at night or sneaking away to smoke a cigarette at night sends spasms of anxiety through the people, afraid that this might be their last breath.  I made up my mind that I need to grab his attention by hook or by crook to my story of the pain and suffering of Kashmiri people. I wanted to explain to him what distrust with the system meant. But my pal didn’t show even a trivial interest. He was content with my one line answer to his question to fill the space left in his story.  Writing this piece I thought might help me to fulfill my yearning.

Past is never dead, past in one sense or the other lives in the present. E.H Carr says in his monumental work ‘What is History’, that we can view the past and achieve our understanding of the past, only through the eyes of the present. By putting it the other way around I think we can view the present and achieve our understanding of the present only through the eyes of the past. But to have a better picture of the past we need to know who has narrated the past and why s/he has narrated the past. We need to go back to the time of the event and interpret the mind that has narrated that event. Looking at the nationalist narratives for reality won’t help one to arrive at the truth. It is thus important to bring the history and its making under the scanner.  In determinism they say everything that happens has a cause or causes, and could not have happened differently unless something in the cause or causes had also been different. Similarly there is a cause to the phenomenon of stone pelting in the valley. It is impossible to heal this problem without curing the cause of it. Merely making assertions that normalcy has returned to the valley can’t conceal the cause.

After the killing of youth in the valley and the commotions over a period of one month, most of the Indian newspapers have started claiming the return of normalcy to the valley, which is not the case. You can not heal the gash just by trying to put it out of sight. Kashmir is burning and will continue to burn unless the government of India repeals its draconian policies on Kashmir. The difference between Nazi Germany and Indian State’s draconian laws like Armed Forces Special Provinces Act is that Hitler was open about his idea of crucifying Jews, while the Indian government does not define itself openly. Indian state always has been able to hide its heinous crimes under a facade by calling itself a liberal, democratic and secular country. May it be the continuation of Gujarat’s Narendra Modi as the Chief Minister or the inability to bring the terrorists responsible for the blasts in Mecca Masjid, Gokul Chat and Lumbini park in Hyderabad to book, the Indian state and the its mainstream media have always remained indifferent.

Most Indians formulate their assumptions and ideas on the basis of reading of reports carried by TV channels, newspapers, watching Bollywood Films and magazines having some ideological stand. Rarely is there any Indian TV channel, paper or magazine having an empathetic understanding of the Kashmir issue. Hardly can one see stories like ‘State of Discontent’ written by Siddharth Vardharajan on the cold blooded murder of five innocent civilians at Panchalthan near Anantnag in March 2000. Otherwise it is always people like Praveen Swami, whose reports are constantly crammed with bias and get maximum legroom to write the claptrap in the national newspapers. As people are prone to amnesia, lest they forget the cause, I would like to refer to few instances which to a considerable degree can be related to the question of the current stone pelting phenomenon in the valley. To answer my friend’s question, I would hereby like to provide him a slight idea about the reasons for gun culture and stone pelting culture in the valley.

1987 Elections: Whether it is Sheikh Adbullah, who had originally led popular dissent against Maharaja Hari Singh or Bakshi Ghulam Muhammad, it is always Delhi that has decided to choose the ruler for Kashmiri people.  This can be understood clearly by the following sentence which Nehru wrote to Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad, “It would strengthen your position much more if you lost a few more seats”. Both Sheikh Abdullah and Bakshi when they fell out with their mentors in Delhi, were arrested.  In 1984 Farooq Abdullah’s popularly elected government was dismissed at the behest of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Farooq Abdullah was found to have built  links with Indian Opposition parties like NDA to create an India wide alliance against the ruling Congress Party.

In 1986, Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Farooq Abdullah signed a new political alliance establishing an electoral partnership. This added to a sense of betrayal among Kashmiris who were shocked at Farooq Abdullah’s compromise with the very Congress party that had pushed him out of power in 1984. Congress Party and the National Conference jointly contested the elections against a conglomerate of smaller political parties under the umbrella of Muslim United Front (MUF). There were mass arrests of MUF candidates. The candidates of Muslim United Front (MUF) which was in the opposition had no choice but to pick up the gun. Sumit Ganguly in ‘The Crisis in Kashmir’ says ‘there were some six hundred opposition workers in those areas known to be MUF strongholds.’  Without going into more details, what we can conclude is that the elections of 1987 were a turning point in the history of valley. The disillusionment and enormous resentment against electoral politics and the victorious National Conference- Congress coalition can be called ‘the beginning of the end’ as Tavleen Singh puts it. That is how the gun culture started.

Bijbehara Killings: 37 innocent people were killed on October 22, 1993 when Border Security Force opened fire to disperse  a crowd of nearly ten thousand people, who were demonstrating against an earlier incident of firing on protestors near Hazratbal Shrine in Srinagar. The Indian government said that the people who were killed ‘died’. Though National Human Rights Commission took the case into their hands, it was not able to do any justice to the people who were killed. The incident was one more shock for the people and they started to doubt the reliability of state institutions.

Pachaltan Killings: On March 20, 2000, on the eve of a visit by then US President Bill Clinton to India, armed men in Indian army uniforms entered the village of Chittisingpora in Anantnag district at night, killed 36 Sikhs and left several injured. Immediately Pakistan was blamed for the incident. Indian government said that it had evidence that the Pakistan based Lashkare Toiba was behind the killings. On March 25, 2000, the security forces claimed that five militants responsible for the massacre had been killed in an armed encounter at Pathribal.  As Siddharth Vardharajan says “even Home Minister L.K Advani triumphantly announced that the five (those killed) were Lashkar-e-Toiba terrorists responsible for the Chittisingpora carnage”.

At that time, a number of villagers especially youth were missing. The villagers lodged a complaint at the police station. Later, it was found that the so called five militants killed in the army encounter in Pathribal were not militants but the men who were missing. On the demand from the public after massive protests, the bodies were exhumed. The army had mutilated the bodies of these five innocents badly. It was then insisted by the state government that DNA verification be carried out. Later it was seen that even the blood samples were tampered with. As Vardharajan rightly  puts it “ In any civilized country, tampering of blood samples in a case relating to the cold blooded killing of innocent civilians would have been treated as a serious criminal case involving charges of accessory to murder. Not so in India or Kashmir.” So in this case also the system was corrupt and irresponsible. What will the people do? Is it not right to come out on the streets and throw stones? The thing called accountability is not even present in theory here.

Shopian Case: Home Minister of India P. Chidambaram gave a clean chit to the army and the paramilitary in the Shopian rape and murder case even while his own agencies were still carrying out the so called investigations into it.

Recently it has been seen that cinema halls in India, prior to screening the movie,  play the national anthem with accompanying visuals of the Indian army hoisting the national flag. In this situation, the people are supposed to give a standing salutation to the army hoisting the flag. Most of people salute and don’t question it.

Recently while watching a movie I refused to stand. I was shouted at from behind by few English speaking urban middle class youth and told to pay respect to the brave Hheros on the screen. I replied to them “they raped my sisters, how I can salute them”. The guys who shouted were frozen by my argument. After the movie got over, I explained to them the reasons for my inability to salute their heroes. At that time I had in my mind the Shopian rape and murder case in which two girls were raped with the involvement of Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). No justice was done to the victims. There was huge resentment among Kashmiris with the inability of the system to deal with the issue.

Recent Killings: A Nine year child, walking amidst the crowds of peaceful marchers to Sopore looking for his mentally challenged brother was gunned down in firing on protestors by the CRPF and police. In a similar fashion, about 18 people were killed recently followed by some of the Indian TV channels and newspapers relating it to the backing of Lashkar e Toiba.  Even India’s home secretary appeared on the television and maintained that the slain boy was not “innocent” but a “paid miscreant”.  Two days later, Union Home Minister P Chidambaram maintained that the mobs in Srinagar were being instigated by Lashkar e Toiba.

Whatever wrong happens is related   to Pakistan. By constantly engaging peoples’ priorities Vis-à-vis Kashmir and thereof the rest of India, the aim has always been to define and solidify the nation state itself. It is clear that there exist festering contradictions in the form of Naxalism and the North East, leading to shallowness of any monolith called India; it has been thus very helpful for India to create the “other” in the form of Pakistan via Kashmir. If people of Kashmir are asking for justice, they are being told “you are suffering because of Pakistan.” India wants to incorporate Kashmiris, but considers them as part of the ‘Other’.

Armed Forces Special Powers Act and Impunity: Those responsible for abuses rarely get investigated, let alone tried and convicted. The laws like AFSPA which allow the lethal force to be used against any person who is acting in contravention of any law or order for the time being in force in the disturbed area has bred deep resentment among Kashmiris towards India. The most alarming factor that is responsible for the situation is high number of unlawful killings by security forces. These perpetrators and violators of human rights are not held accountable by the state for their actions. The immunity provisions in the Armed Forces Special Powers Act are used often in Kashmir to prevent civilian prosecutors from prosecuting soldiers. Whether one is raped or slaughtered by the army, it is important to get the sanction from the central government to prosecute any army person. No prosecution, suit or other legal proceedings shall be instituted, except with previous sanction of the Central Government, against any person in respect of anything done or purported to be done in exercise of the powers conferred by this Act. This Draconian law gives the army men the license to kill anyone.

Conclusion: This is not the end. There are a plethora of such instances which can be associated with the stone pelting phenomenon in Kashmir. Indian Press might claim the restoration of normalcy but the anger  of the people over the recent killings in Kashmir can’t be covered up. The resentment still persists. It is important for Indian state and its media to introspect and at least give a compassionate thought to the cries of pain. The State government which is running at the behest of Delhi had always been unable to hear their cries of pain and suffering. As I mentioned earlier, everything that happens has a cause and here the cause is the indifferent attitude of Indian government to the Kashmiris. All the events are related to each other. We cannot separate one event from the other. Though my story of pain and suffering of Kashmiri people and their distrust with the system is incomplete, I hope it will give my friend a better idea about what I think is the reason for the so called violent protests in the valley and why the people of Kashmir don’t go to the government asking for its help.

According to the indices listed in the 2001 Census Report, the net literacy rate in the state is around 54.46%. The men lead the literacy figures with a 65.75% literacy rate while the female follow at 41.82%. The quality of higher education in Jammu and Kashmir is much deplorable. More than 25 percent faculty positions in universities & colleges remain vacant; 57 per cent teachers in colleges do not have either an M Phil or PhD; there is only one computer for 229 students, on an average in colleges. Big states in India like Tamil Nadu has 100% trained teachers. Also, in smaller states like Himachal Pradesh and Goa, 90% of the teachers are trained. A distinct feature of the educational scenario in Jammu and Kashmir is that it has a large number of temporary and ad hoc teachers.  Among all 368 universities and 18,064 colleges the J&K state have a little share of 2 state and 2 agricultural Universities, in addition, three new universities managed by different trusts of the state and a small score of colleges, reflects a slow increase and less infrastructure development among the higher education institutions. Most of the colleges do not have adequate infrastructure and proper accommodation vis-à-vis rooms.

These conditions have led to bulk of students from Jammu and Kashmir to opt out of their studies and start looking for other alternatives in which they consider militancy also as one alternative. Most of the students opt out because of their inability to meet the expenses for higher studies. The rest of the students forming miniscule come out of their state and pursue their higher education in comparatively better developed states of India. In most states of India, the students from underprivileged (economically, socially, culturally) class are being aided by their respective governments in the form of scholarships for the betterment of them. While the case is paradoxical in Jammu and Kashmir as can be described by recent example where Jammu and Kashmir government could not send their list of recommended candidates for pre-matric scholarships.   The Jammu and Kashmir government was in the category of worst performers who could not send their list for any of the three mega scholarship schemes (pre-matric, post-matric and merit-cum-means – for the year 2009-2010).  Over the past two decades much of the energy has been spent on the conflict whereas the issues related to common man have taken backseat.  Most of the energy of the mainstream media has been consumed in giving representation to the political issues over developmental issues.

Thus it has become important for us to raise the question of scholarships to be provided for the students of Jammu and Kashmir, who are pursuing their higher studies. It not will only enable students to pursue their higher education but also will help parents to consider their children as assets not liability. Students receiving generous scholarship opportunities will to an extent be relieved of some of the financial burden and thus could steer student’s higher education plans.

There is a proverb in Arabic “Al Tikrar Biallem il Hmar” (By repetition even the donkey learns). The depiction of Muslims by far and widely circulated media as ‘Cultural Other” has become a conventional and legitimized practice to engage with understanding the Muslim world. With the repetition of images portraying Muslims as ‘Other”, masses are so caught up in the images that access to reality has become impracticable. People’s knowledge and understanding of Muslims has been channelized in such a manner that the images have replaced reality, thus becoming an uninterrupted conduit for describing Muslims. The Reel Muslim has never been characterized as a guy that you would like to have as your next door neighbor, because he is also like you. The Reel Muslim has always been portrayed as intimidating, a carrier of primitivism, upsetting the pleasant modern world with strange habits and desires. When was the time that in a movie a Muslim was shown as a guy working 12 hours a day, coming home to a loving family, drinking coffee, listening to music, sharing jokes with friends? This repetition of images portraying Muslim as pessimistic value possessors has essentially led people to believe that it is always only Muslims who have a problem with Others – Jews, Christians, West, Hindus. It is often that when people talk about Muslims, they talk of what they have read in the newspapers or of images they have seen in the media which always condition their thoughts to believe in a particular way.

One of the enthusiastic producers of these images is cinema. Cinema plays an important cohesive role, constructing a pan world identity. People relate to each other watching particular versions of cinema. Jack G. Shaheen, in his book “Reel Bad Arabs” documents and discusses virtually every feature that Hollywood has ever made – more than 900 films, the vast majority of which portray Arabs by distorting at every turn what most Arab men, women, and children are really like. According to Shaheen, for more than a century, Hollywood has used repetition as a teaching tool, tutoring movie audiences by repeating over and over, in film after film, insidious images of the Muslim world. The trend was adapted by Bollywood (national film industry), which also started dealing with the same subject but in a different way. Bollywood reflects India and has subsequently become an inseparable part of people’s imagination, lived experiences, customs and traditions. Bollywood and its engagement with the Muslim as a subject has encountered an imperative shift over a period of time. From lethargic Nawabs, Badshahs and nobles, Muslims have been reduced to people having blind faith in Jihad. The historicization of Bollywood’s long Muslim obsession is thus an exploration of how this obsession fits into the relationship between Indian Bollywood and the Muslim subject.

The historicization of Bollywood’s obsession with Muslim can be broadly and loosely classified into four different phases. In the movies of the fifties to the seventies like Mughl-e-Azam, Shah Jahan, Nikah, Bazaar etc, Muslims were characterized as a community which can be assimilated into the fold of Hindu India but always with suspicion. The second stage which started in the eighties with focus on Mumbai’s underworld mafia depicted Muslims as central characters dominating the underworld. Smugglers wearing Arab robes, puffing cigars, carrying briefcases were a common element in these films. The third phase started with Mani Ratnam’s flamboyant narrative of guns and roses – Roja. The Muslim as “other’ in the form of Pakistan through Kashmir was manifested in a series of movies that revolved around this topic. In these films, it was the Indian ‘Self’ investing all its energy to protect the motherland from the attack of the ‘other’, Enemy Number 1, Pakistan. These films largely helped to divert the attention of the Indian masses by concealing the prevalent socio-political inequalities of Indian society behind images of nation and nationality. The fourth stage of Bollywood’s engagement with Muslims is the post 9/11 phenomenon. Here, it is not India that is fighting with the ‘other’ but a replacement in the form of the West. The Indian Self has been replaced by its Western counterpart while the enemy has remained the same. Films like New York and Kurbaan fall under this category.

In the films that were made in the fifties with the Muslim subject at the centre, an attempt was made to portray Muslims as a faintly differentiated section of Indian society. In films like Umrao Jaan, Mere Huzoor and Pakeezah, Muslims were revealed as an aristocratic class, delighting themselves watching mujrahs and splurging money on the girls performing mujrahs. The apparatus used in these movies was to depict the Muslim as a category madly in pursuit of pleasure and hungry for wealth. Some movies like Mughl-e-Azam scaled the graphs of fame with the Muslim as an essential character confirming what the general masses accepted – Muslims as creatures that can be assimilated as a part of Hindu Indian society. It was evident through these movies that there lies a regional blend that distinguishes Indian Muslims significantly from Muslims of the Arab heartland. Religious tolerance and the tendency among Indian Muslims to synthesize with local customs were distinctive features of these movies. In this genre, Muslim men were shown wearing Aligarh cut Sherwanis, chewing betel nut and reciting Iqbal’s or Ghalib’s poetry at the drop of a hat. The moment such caricatures appeared on the screen, the audience knew that it is time for a Qawwali, h or Ghazal. Qawwalis and Mujras became synonymous with Muslim culture.

Later Bollywood film makers with films like Elan and Salim Langde Pe Mat Ro took a slightly different turn by disparaging the aimlessness of lower middle class Muslim youth. Films like Bazaar and Nikah with their high dose of Muslim social melodrama tried to reveal the domestic customs and traditions in Muslim society. While Nikah represented Talaq (divorce) as a means of suppression and marginalization of Muslim women, Bazaar on the other hand depicted the cruelty of poverty stricken Muslim families in marrying their under aged daughters to elderly Arab men. These movies stand as a watershed in highlighting Muslims as negative quality bearers with ‘unsophisticated’ dreams. Finally, the connection was ‘instituted’ between Indian Muslim and Arab Muslim.

The third remarkable shift in the late seventies and eighties was the portrayal of Muslims as characters central to Mumbai’s underworld. The Muslim characters since then also started becoming negative in Bollywood movies. Movies like Ghulam-e -Mustafa and Angar started this trend and became popular with the masses. The innate criminal instinct within the Muslim psyche was the central ideology circulated through these movies. The Muslim as a bohemian character with unnatural desires for accumulating wealth remained the core theme in these movies. In this genre, people were made to believe in perceiving Muslims as a threat to institutional apparatus of the state. The minor connection between Indian Muslims and Arab Muslims instituted through movies of the early seventies was permeated profoundly through these images. In these images, the Indian Muslim’s underworld connections were shown as impossible without the support of Muslims carrying out the same activities at the international level.

The 1965 war between India and Pakistan over Kashmir and the 1975 war over Bangladesh facilitated Indian Bollywood to successfully and legitimately portray Muslim as ‘Other’ through Pakistan. The multi-ethnic, multi-national composition of India and absence of shared culture and symbols among Indian people made it necessary for Bollywood to construct images of India depicting the Indian state as sustaining and restraining the festering contradictions.

By constantly engaging people’s priorities vis-à-vis Kashmir and thereby of Pakistan, the aim was to define and solidify the nation state. For ordinary Indians possessing layers of identities, their identification with the Indian state operates in different contexts. An inclusive Indian gains pre-eminence when confronted with Muslim Pakistan. The unique thing about jingoistic films was their core theme of presenting Kashmir as atoot ang (integral part) of India. In 1999, the Kargil War played a distinctive role in making Kashmir central to the definition of Indian national unity. The Kargil episode, for the first time inspired a Post Independence India which for the first time during and for a short while after the Kargil episode stood together, shoulder to shoulder – something which had never occurred before. Advertisement of national pride through films enabled for the first time in 52 years, an image of this nation truly united as one, cutting across all barriers of caste, class, creed and community.

In order to liberate Kashmir from Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, the Indian armed forces were portrayed as the male protagonists, battling for the cause of humanity. It thus became inescapable to make films on Kashmir, without incorporating the message of Kashmir as national project. In almost all these movies, Muslims were branded either as terrorists or fanatics whose desires were pre-modern, not fitting into the Western democratic liberal model. There was a flagrant significance in the titles of movies itself – Mission Kashmir, Fannah (Destruction)), Dhokha (Betrayal).

It was with Mani Ratnam’s Roja that for first time the Kashmir problem was publicized on the big screen. According to Nicholas Dirks, there is one scene where hero, Rishi Kumar saves the flag and rises, still on fire, to avenge the perpetrators of symbolic violence, with the soundtrack building in momentum to a song by Subramaniam Bharati that evokes the geographical unity and integrity of the Indian nation. The scene is framed in a manner that seems clearly to set Islam against the principles of Indian nationalism – by shots of the main terrorist calmly praying to Allah. Various reports from viewers around India suggest that the visual pleasure of national spectator is at its peak and that audiences are most demonstrative during this scene of patriotic self sacrifice. In films like Dhokha and Chak De India, it was the loyalty of the Indian Muslim that was put to question. If Kabir Khan as the National hockey team Coach in Shahrukh Khan starred Chak De India raised doubts regarding the loyalty of the Indian Muslims towards the Indian nation, in Dhokha it is Zaid Ahmad Khan (ACP), a true, secular Muslim struggling to prove his credentials of being a loyal citizen of India that audiences are faced with. Mukesh Bhatt’s Muzammil Ibrahim starred ‘Dhokha’ or ‘Betrayal’ is a Bollywood offering that raises several questions about Muslims and their identity in India. Coming out of the rhetoric of his fluffy musicals for the first time, Mukesh Bhatt’s Dhokha tries to get to the bottom of the delicate question of Hindu-Muslim antagonism. On the night of a lethal bombing at the New Century Club in Mumbai, Zaid helps the horrified victims in the blast. Zaid offers to donate blood to one of the injured, believed to be a Hindu. The dilemma mounts when the father of the injured disdainfully refuses to receive any aid from Zaid saying he would rather see his daughter dead than let the blood of a Muslim, ‘a traitor, perfidious creature’ flow through his daughter’s veins. Though the film progressively engages itself with denouncing the people who spread terror in the name of religion and tries to find reasons for the root cause of terrorism, it fails to provide a solution to the Islamophobia that is deeply inculcated in the psyche of the general masses. With Dhokha which begins with the cataclysmic 9/11 attacks, a link is created between Bolloywood and the Muslim subject that has been borrowed by other film makers. This defines the entry of Bollywood’s rendezvous with the Muslim Subject into a new stage. Kurbaan and New York are the examples of this genre, where it is not India but the west that is fighting the same ‘Other’.

A plethora of movies have been made by Bollywood where actresses have played much more audacious acts prior to Kareena’s bare backed posture. It is a matter of concern why it was only Kareena Kapoor who was censured for her bare backed pose in the film. The film was released at a time when the theme of ‘love jihad’ was circulating rapidly in the media. Kurbaan which depicts Kareena Kapoor playing a Hindu girl falling in love with Muslim Saif Ali Khan raises a doubt as to whether it was the blaze of ‘Love Jihad’ that incited the Shiv Sena goons to object to Kareena’s bare back. After its rival MNS did its job of screwing Karan Johar’s happiness over Wake Up Sid, the Shiv Sena’s men marched to Kareena’s house to gift her a saree, and followed this up by going around Mumbai covering her back with sarees on posters of Kurbaan. Karan Johar could have thought of an even better way than this to turn heads. Kurbaan, which deals with the post 9/11 Muslim identity, widens the gap in Muslim stereotypes. In the film, Muslim women are shown as feeble and submissive, as victims of a patriarchal and misogynistic religion. Muslim men are typified as creepy, scary looking creatures who physically abuse their wives. The next offering by the director of Kurbaan, Karan Johar is Shah Rukh Khan starred ‘My Name is Khan’, probably revolving around the Muslim identity yet again.

Bollywood’s obsession with Islam thus far has always created a clichéd image of Muslims without having done much research on the subject. People have succumbed to the images produced by Bollywood thereby losing a healthy understanding of Muslim society. Now ask a director or story writer whether it is ethical to perpetuate ethnic and racial stereotypes and in a majority of cases, you will hear a big “NO”. Then why is it that the very same individuals who don’t intentionally believe in stereotyping fall in the trap of stereotyping Muslims? The major reason is that what these filmmakers and writers read, hear and see originate from print, radio and television. Modern day media fundamentally is about one sided flow of information –from West to Rest. In the dominant discourse, it is the West, portrayed as a civilized, sophisticated and modern civilization fighting ‘Just War’ against primitive, uncivilized Muslim aggression. The filmmakers in Bollywood also surrender to this west – oriented, magic bullet impact of the media and in this manner get ensnared in an invisible cage. The major obstacle is that these films are watched by less informed people and children having a rudimentary ability to differentiate between right and wrong. Not only children and the common masses, but even the relatively more well-informed cannot escape the power manifested in these images. Even though these films try sometimes to empathize with the Subject, they no longer help to reduce the bias but only make the categories Muslim and Hindu more stark. A child watching any of these films will for obvious reasons ask several questions regarding for example, the Hindu-Muslim dichotomy and the West-Muslim antipathy. What answer can the parent give? Will the answer be framed based on his/her prejudiced interpretation of Muslims in cinema or will it be one shaped by reality, which hardly anyone has access to?

There is no denying the fact that there are Muslim terrorists. There are also other terrorists who are everywhere and can be of any religion. Why it is always that the term “terrorist” is always attributed to Muslims while not to others who commit much more heinous crimes? Why it is that those committing such crimes are characterized as people fighting a ‘Just War’. What distinguishes a “just war” from an “unjust” one? In both cases, it is thousands and thousands of common people who are being massacred. What makes the prosecutors of Guatemala Bay and the slaughterers of Gujarat different from those attacking the twin towers? If there is a difference, then everyone can have a claim to be fighting a “Just War”. If Bollywood successfully carries the messages of Muslims as Other, why is there a lack of enthusiasm in portraying the reversal of the subjects of violence? How many films have been made by Bollywood on America’s War on Iraq? How many films have touched upon the issue of Guantanamo Bay?

This Schmittian world of friend and foe dichotomy has lucid relevance in contemporary era. Despite Schmitt’s position despite of its evident problems, it is superior to various rulers or groups or individuals who have always shied away from  defining their enemies e.g. Bush, Wolfowitz, Modi, MIM , Khomeini , Ashcroft. This is because Schmitt condemns the idea of waging war for profit and recognizes that such wars will often be disguised as moral crusades waged against the inhuman; and he acknowledges that claiming to fight a war for humanity denies one’s enemies their humanity, leaving them open to torture and even extermination. The example that I will try to explore is politics of American self assertion after 9/11 in schmittian sense.

“Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists” . (George W. Bush)

“The war is considered to constitute the absolute last stand of humanity. Such a war is necessarily unusually intense and inhuman because, by transcending the limits of the political framework, it simultaneously degrades the enemy into moral and other categories and is forced to make of him a monster that must not only be repulsed but also utterly destroyed. In other words, he is no longer an enemy who must only be compelled to retreat into his borders”. (Carl Schmitt)

Derrida suggested that a critical reading of Schmitt could help to understand 9/11 and what continues to follow it. Derrida’s concept of suicidal autoimmunity, – ‘that strange behavior where a living being, in quasi-suicidal fashion, ‘itself’ works to destroy its own protection, to immunize itself against its ‘own’ immunity’ – provides a useful perspective on some of the potential consequences of a continuously shifting, pragmatic response to the need for this negatively grounded US identity to continually re-situate itself opposition to others. Derrida referred to the recurring tendency of US foreign policy to base itself on this logic of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’ as doubly suicidal.

Here enemy is, was Islam and Islam’s enemy becomes America’s friend. For Schmitt you need to justify your position while defining enemy like America’s War against terrorism. Historically speaking also in schmittian terms Wilson’s aim to expand US authority to a global scale, to make the world safe for democracy’, required the obedience of Congress to send the country to war on the grounds that world peace and democracy needed protecting. Here the problem is not defining enemy your enemy in schmittian sense. America tries not to define enemy directly and justifies its position by demonizing the image of enemy. As Edward Said remarks in his book Orientalism, Palestinian and Islamic men are often portrayed in popular media as dead, dying, or murderous. This trope of the violent Middle-Eastern man perpetuates the idea that Palestinian men will only respond to violent measures.

After 9/11 Bush administration, responded to the attacks in a moralistic and deeply unhelpful manner, calling for a war to rid the world of evil. Here two categories us and them are created, us v/s them. This fits well with Hobbes’s account of sovereignty

“In which the sovereign ‘‘personates’’ the community, and where person plays upon its theatrical roots as the mask that identities a play’s character: a multitude of men, are made One Person, when they are by one man, or one Person, represented. . . . For it is the Unity of the Representer, not the Unity of the Represented, that make the Person One’’ (Hobbes)

We see ourselves in the person who represents us (sovereign power). In America, only the president represents all Americans. As Bush has put it too, either you are with us, or you are with the terrorist’s. Therefore Islam is constructed as antithesis of west. As for Schmitt an enemy exists only when, at least potentially, one fighting collectivity of people confronts a similar collectivity. In this case Islam represents one collectivity and west other collectivity. The decision the sovereign makes in naming the threat and the enemy is one that declares a state of emergency. Schmitt says “the sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception”

In this sense Bush administration echoes Schmitt’s borderline concept of sovereignty. There are many resemblances of schmittian ideas in his political theology, the concept of the political and Bush administration’s posture since 9/11 like emphasis upon the unity of the community, in America the homeland since September 11, 2001, us and them etc.

The ongoing commotion in the valley is an embodiment of the fragile nature of Kashmir issue. India’s status quo approach on Kashmir issue is paving the way for disenchantment among the people of Jammu and Kashmir thereby giving rise to unrest in the valley. The land transfer issue which has generated the world wide debate over the contested land of Kashmir need to be disentangled from the approach cultivated by Indian media. Largely the Indian media has portrayed the unrest as ‘clash of faiths’, pitting Hindus of jammu and Muslims of Kashmir against each other . The grand narratives such as Democracy, liberalism have arrived at halt while Indian administration declaring ban on the regional media. The Indian coercive forces have accomplished their task by imposing the curfew, thereby alienating the people of Kashmir from knowing their own state of affairs. The regional reporters are being beaten up on daily basis by Indian security forces. Geelani, Omar Farooq, Yasin Malik and many other leaders have been put under house arrest, curfew has been imposed, shoot at sight has been ordered, people are being beaten up for chanting the slogans of azaadi (Independence). The question that arises is how far the Indian state will go in imposing its will and subjugate the peoples aspiration to see their state as independent one. The people of Kashmir are striving for freedom since one and half century, the first century in fighting against absolutism of Maharaja regime and next half century fighting against Indian oppression.

It was in 1980′s when Kashmiri people started challenging the very legitimacy of Indian rule, led by Jammu and Kashmir liberation front (JKLF) for separate, independent, secular and democratic united Jammu and Kashmir. The deep resentment towards Indian State. increased in the face of rising unemployment,corrupt politics, oppressive nature of Indian state. This forced JKLF to launch its militant movement for independence. The movement was supported unanimously by people of Kashmir and got deeply entrenched into the psyche of Kashmiri middle class. The approach of Delhi has always remained callous towards Kashmir, thus Kashmir was always less free and democratic than rest of India. It was largely the youth of Jammu and Kashmir which showed immense interest in Kashmiri national movement. Kashmiri nationalists stressed a separate ethnic identity called ‘Kashmiriyat’ that consolidates Kashmiris of all religions and ethnic groups. Unfortunately this pro-independence nationalistic fervor was taken over by Jihadi forces backed by Pakistan. The intrusion of Pakistan backed militants into the Kashmir was one of the greatest catastrophe for the Kashmiris and their right for self determination. Through religion, the Jihadi forces seized the opportunity and utilized the religious sentiments of the people. The intrusion of jihadi factor only helped in tarnishing the secular, dovish character of Kashmiris freedom struggle. India began to capitalize over the situation and started demonizing Pakistan, this gave India the legitimacy to carry various attrocities against Kashmiris especially Kashmiri Muslims. India tried to escape from the ground reality by holding Pakistan responsible for the Kashmiri nationalism . While the reality was to solve the Kashmiri issue in accordance with the wishes of Kashmiris. Later JKLF lost its sheen when some of its leaders were found flirting with secret agencies of India and Pakistan. At present JKLF is not what it used be in terms of its ideology in 1980′s.

Jagmohan Malhotra, virulent RSS patron, who was the centrally appointed governor took the opportunity in blending nationalism and communalism which led to polarization of the population. Communal disturbances became frequent which till now were unheard of in the valley. The Indian army brutalized the innocent Kashmiris in a manner more severe than the prisoners face in Guantanamo. Women were raped, general civilians were harassed, humiliated and the famous “Crackdown” became the daily phenomenon. This all led deep animosity towards Indian state. It was the time when several anti- Indian slogans were framed by Kashmiris like Bharti kutto wapas Jao ( Indian dogs Go Back) implying the hatred towards the colossal presence of Indian troops installed in Kashmir. This ‘gun’ movement was crushed by the Indian troops with the aid of renegade Ikhwanis . Azaadi still was the favoutite slogan of Kashmiris, which can be emphasized by the fact that even when neighbors fight each other, hum kya chahte Azaadi ( we want freedom), unintentionally slips from their tongue.

After a decade same situation has been arised where Kashmir issue has again garnered international attention. But the present situation differs from the last one in the fact that this time the voice has been raised in the form of peaceful mass protests. The 100 acre land grant to Shri amarnath Shrine Board (SASB) acted merely as a stimulus for Kashmiris, and their continous supression has erupted in the form of volcano. Even the the children are daring to face the ammunition loaded Indian Army personnel as depicted in a picture taken by local journalist. The land was transferred to SASB to set up shelters for Hindu pilgrims. 1980′s despite being period of gun in Kashmir, everything was assured for the safety for the Amarnath Yatris by kashmiri locals. So the protests by kashmiris over the land tranfer has nothing to do with any kind of hatredness towards Hindu Community. It was the love for land and the seduction of nationalism that took the masses to streets.The faith in azaadi came to forefront when kashmiris dared to face the bullets of Indian army resulting death of several proteters. The state government accepted the demands of kashmiris by revoking land transfer.

Communal Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), known for its opportunist character inculcated in the Hindus of jammu a profound sense of insecurity over the State Governments decision by surrendering to demands by Kashmiris. The people of jammu got trapped into BJP’s politics and with support of VHP and Bajrang Dal started protesting in support of the land transfer. The BJP believes in India as a Hindu Rashtra and has no symtapthy for Indian muslims except than Indianizing them. RSS believes that “Hindu coincides with rashtra or nationality and therefore Hindus are automatically true nationals. Members of other religions, if they denied they are indus were also denying they are Indian.” These are the words of Hedgewar, RSS’s first leader. So it is not a problem for Hindus in Jammu to support BJP as they have that previlege of being Hindu.

Economic blockade of the Kashmir Valley was enforced by stopping traffic on national highway, the only route connecting Indian plains to kashmir valley. Two and half districts of jammu caught the eye of media in unprecendented manner and the issue was portrayed as communal , pitting hindus and muslims against each other which is far from true. Separatists, who have the mass support called for a march to Muzaffarabad, in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir. The economic blockade almost reduced the fruit cultivators of valley to tears as they were unable to export their fruit to other states of India. The current unrest in Kashmir part of valley is the symbolic of emergence of the idea of nationalism. The educated younger generation are the staunch beleivers of the idea called Greater Kashmir ( Indian occupied Jammu and kashmir plus pakistan Occupied Kashmir). People like Syed ali Shah Geelani are ideologically confused who sometimes believe nation as Allah’s Concept and sometimes dream for Kashmir as an islamic state. Geelani has a belief that people of Kashmir believe him because of their belief in Islam. If it would have been the case why it is that Kashmiri people don’t regard Indian Cinema as mediocre or a potent threat to Geelan’s islamic traditions. It is rather the Kashmiris love for their homeland that hepls Geelani to control people in Kashmir. Geelani has a vision of a state which will be based on shariat, islamic law. Geelani has wrong notion when he considers pakistan as Muslims homeland and symbol of islamic state. The idea of Geelani’s pro- Pakistan will never allow to accommodate differences which otherwise is the basic tenet of kashmiri nationalism. There is always a political choice, essential to be exercized and Geelani is a part of that choice. People choose Geelani because he is better choice for kashmiris than India. There is rich tradition of kashmiriyat, a composite cultural identity with glorious traditions of communal amity, tolerance and compassion. The consequences will be devastating if political leaders continue in framing this isuue as communal. Kashmiris always believe in azaadi of kashmir and kashmir’s azaadi doesn’t mean to them la ilaha illalla ( There is no god only allah). Azaadi for kashmiris is the symbolic of the love for freedom, peace and desire for nation called kashmir.

The idea of India in Kashmiris imaginary is abhorrent, non democratic and tyrannical and diabolical nation. India has cunningly tried to invent terrorism links in kashmiris aspiration for azaad Kashmir. The problem lies in the fact that there is mistrust among the people of jammu and Kashmir due to painful experiences experienced by them. Kashmiris confidently define themselves as kashmiris but not Indians. The sacrifices made by kashmiris has not reaped any fruit only because they lack charismatic leaders having proper vision. Kashmiris have always experienced corrupt, insufficient leaders who never empathised with the common peoples aspirations.The responsibilty for reducing kashmir to dangerous location lies only on the shoulders of Pakistan, India, United states and United Nations. The way media is presently portraying Kashmir issue as communal one arised due to land transfer is far from true and strongly needed to be disentagled. The current protests in Kashmir are only the symbolic of the emergence of Kashmiri nationalism and Kashmiris right for self determination.

( M.S Golwalkar, , Hindu Rashtra and Minorities)

The above lines are taken from Bunch of Thoughts, by M.S Golwalkar, ‘tapasvi’ (sage), ‘man of high character’, ‘embodiment of austerity with an aura of dynamism around’ as defined by India’s “Prime Minister in waiting” Mr. Lal krishna Advani in his memoir ‘My Country My Life’. In his Book Mr. Advani tries to remove the misconceptions and prejudices that has grown over the years around the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) in particular. RSS is the focal organization connected with the project of Hindu nationalism (Hindu Rashtra). RSS was founded in 1925 and its first leader was Baligram Hedgewar who was influenced by writings of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Savarkar excluded Islam from his notion of Hindutva as he considered that Islam carried cultural components that did not fit into Hindus way of life as a collectivity. Mr. Advani advocates the Common people to read ‘non communal’ Golwalkar and then themselves validate the authenticity of this ‘mendacious’ blame. Mr. Advani in his memoir seems to be sorrowful as he considers his master Golwalkar, commonly referred as Shri Guruji by Advani et.al as the victim of vilification Campaign ( the same vilification as faced by V.D Savarkar according to Mr. Advani). Advani was 14 years old when he was for the first time introduced to his destiny called RSS. The man who has been dominating Indian national politics from last 60 years needs to be paid attention when he defends some one, that also the master of his ideology M.S Golwalkar. Advani believes that his master was never communal, instead was a person with ‘saintly appearance’ and of secular character. Advani’s Golwalkar aspired for so called Indianization of Indian Muslims, which in Advani’s consideration is secular.

Advani  considers himself involved in every right thing that has happened to India and ardent critique of every other ‘bad’ thing which questioned the very basic credentials of the his Motherland (India). Lets evaluate ‘secular’ traits of Advani’s guru by taking the very text written by M.S Golwalkar into consideration.

Conceptualiztion of Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation) and Minorities by M.S Golwalkar: According to Golwalkar “the so-called minorities living in India have nothing to lose but everything to gain by the rejuvenation of Hindu Rashtra”. Golwalkar confesses that Secularism as originated in the west has no relevance to India. According to Golwalkar the word secularism is centuries ago concept, while as India’s great book on secularism edited by Rajeev Bhargava ‘Secularisn and its Critics’ claims secularism as a modern concept as the term secularism was coined in 1851 by George jacob Holyake. Golwalkar asserts that the word secular is nowhere to be found in our constitution and foisting of such a word can be termed as interpolation and a superimposition upon the constitution. Golwalkar strongly believe that his narrow nationalist outlook will ultimately help in raising up the nation after absorbing the desirable form. Golwalkar wants the Muslims to be assimilated, digested, absorbed in manner so that they shed their Mohammedan roots. .

Golwalkar gives the reasons why motherland (Hindu Rashtra) is Hindu not Bharatiya or Arya.

 1 ) Why it is not Arya, is because the name Arya has gone out of use especially for the last thousand years. Due to Aryan-Dravidian controversy, “the use of ‘Arya’ would be self-defeating in its purpose of bringing up before our people stretching from Himalayas to Kanyakumari, irrespective of all denominations, past and present.

2) According to Golwalkar there is misconception regarding the word Bharatya. as it is used as a translation of the word ‘Indian’ which includes all the various other communities like the Muslim, christian, parsi, etc, residing in this land. “So the word ‘Bharatya’ too likely to mislead us when we want to denote our particular scociety.

3) Why Hindu?. According to golwalkar “Hindu alone connotes correctly and completely the meaning which we want to convey” . It gives one the constipation by the logic presented by Golwalkar to defend the name ‘Hindu’.

The logic is as,.

“We find the name Sapta-Sindhu in the oldest records of the world-the Rig-Veda itself-as an epithet applied to our land and our people. And its is also well know the syllable ‘S’ in Sanskrit is at times changed to ‘H’ as some of our Prakrit languages and even in European languages” and thus the name Hapta-hindu and then ‘Hindu’ came into currency”

Golwalkar quotes Brihaspati Agama according to whom “the word ‘Hindu’ is formed with the letter ‘Hi’ from the Himalayas and ‘Indu’ from Indu Sarovar (the southern ocean), conveying the entire stretch of our motherland”

Advani’s ‘sage’ has deep entrenched antipathy towards Muslims which is defended by Advani by naming it as vilification, misconception, misunderstanding. Advani presented two arguments in his memoir ‘My Country My life’ to prove Golwalkar’s liking towards Muslims. But if Advani would have gone a bit further he would have been trapped into the colossal quandary.

According to Golwalkar “ after the death of Mohammed Pygamber his followers poured out from Arabstan in waves after waves with their swords dripping with blood and overran vast portion as of the globe, trampling under their feet all the various empires that lay in their path—Iran, Egypt, Rome, Europe and all others up to China. The same tides of fanatic fury dashed also against the shores of Hindustan. Our people braved the onslaughts relentlessly for over hundred years and instead of being sucked up, ultimately succeeded in crushing completely the forces of enemy”.

Muslims according to Golwalkar’s are enemies who are foreign, intruders to this land called Hindustan. For Golwalkar the nation consists of five units geography, race, religion, culture and language. This implies itself about the identity and status of India’s Muslim population and other groups like Sikhs, Christians and Buddhists. To this Golwalkar has answer Sikhs and Buddhists are Hindus and thus Indians. Here it becomes important to refer Hedgewar, first leader of RSS

 “ Hindu coincides with rashtra or nationality and therefore Hindus are automatically true nationals. Members of other religions, if they denied they are Hindus were also denying that they were Indians”

According to Golwalkar the serious failure of democracy in independent Hindustan is growing menace of communism. By voting along with Communists in recent, BJP didn’t worried about this menace and happily voted against the UPA government. Golwalkar who earlier refers Christianity as intolerant faith changes his argument and assures that in West it is the Christianity that alone can stem the tide of Communism. Golwalkar says communism takes root only where faith is shattered.

Advani’s book My country My life as reviewed by Praful Bidwai is a launching pad for the next election, exposing Advani’s pettiness which he has inherited from his guru Golwalkar. According to Golwalkar “ Ever Since that evil day, when moslems first landed in Huindustan, right to the present moment, the Hindu nation has been gallantly fighting on to shake off the despoilers ….”

Such is the hate for Muslims in Golwalkar entrenched and Mr. Advani tries to defend him. The problem is solved here, as BJP might try to prove itself as secular in the the form writing memoirs like written by advani, but it is clearly understood that their agenda is to Indianize Muslims of Hindustan.  ndia and ultimtely Hinduize them.The ‘other’ need to be eliminated in order to give proper definition to the ‘self’. The other here refers Muslims. My Country My life is desperate attemp by L.K advani to win over the hearts and minds of people to be next prime Minister of India so as to continue the Communal legacy that he has inherited from his gurus like Golwalkar , Savarkar, Rajpal Puri, Shyam prasad Mukherjee.

It was in 1964 that Kashmir Ki Kali (K3) hit the cinemas as a salad of music, romance and drama; garnished with fresh sprigs of the Kashmiri locale. Kashmir is kali was a musical that presented a trip to Srinagar on a couch. The era of color had brought a sort of vibrancy into movies. Outdoors and their natural colors turned into a rage. The white of snow was much beautiful in a color movie than grey and grey movies. So K3 was a treat to the moviegoers with its beautiful Kashmiri locations.

In 1999, it was Kargil War that played a distinctive role in making Kashmir central to the definition Indian national unity. The Kargil episode inspired a first Post Independent India, which had never before stood together, shoulder to shoulder, than it did during and for a short while after the Kargil Episode. Kargil became the USP of film makers. Even though these films didn’t make it big at box office level but they got admiration from all types of people. Advertisement of national pride through films enabled for the first time in 52 years, this nation truly united as one, cutting across all barriers of caste, class, creed, and community.

While Bollywood has long projected Kashmir as the eroticized landscape of the mind in the social imaginary of Indians’ it was Mani Ratnam’s flamboyant narrative of guns and roses – Roja (1992) – that kick-started a reexamination of Bollywood’s complicity with ‘the secret politics of our desires’. Violence and geopolitics have intervened within Kashmir’s cinematic performance and reception. With the emergence of Kashmiri separatism in 1989, the Valley now offers a theatre for a new ‘cinepatriotism’ for the romance of Indo-Pak war rather than the battle of the sexes (Kabir, 2004a).
Although numerous films were made on Kashmir; it is the modicum of films or none of these films that portrayed indigenous cultural space of Kashmir. The celebrated brotherhood between Kashmiri Pandits and Kashmiri Muslims was never tried to be publicized by film makers. It was only in Jagmohan period in Kashmir, the animosity aroused in non-communal Kashmir. The political structures were structured in a manner that led to communal confrontation in the Valley. The people who had lived since centuries harmoniously became the victims of communal politics thus led them to exterminate each other. This phenomenal catastrophe was portrayed in films in enthusiastically without letting people to question the veracity.

In reality it is only 10 bad films that Bollywood has been able to produce on Kashmir after 1990’s. If we analyze these films it makes one clear about how the mainstream media represents Kashmir and Kashmiri people. Almost in most of these films Kashmiri’s are either labeled as terrorists or fundamental Muslim’s whose morals and ethic are pre-modern and doesn’t fit in this western democratic liberal society. There is palpable change in titles itself, how the films related with Kashmir started with titles like Kali, Hena and then transformation of titles to Mission Kashmir, Fannah. The changes in the titles clearly signify the loss of innocence and creation of defective place called Kashmir.

Activists of Hindu nationalist Shiv Sena party, in saffron scarves, disrupt a gathering of Muslims protesting against the 1992 destruction of the 16th-century Babri Mosque by Hindu extremists on its anniversary, in New Delhi, India, Thursday, Dec. 6, 2007. (AP

World without war is world without politics, world without politics is world without enmity and world without enmity is without human beings- Carl Schmitt

The ruling student union under ABVP, in University of Hyderabad more or less is taking strand from schmittian philosophy to destabilize the synchronized laden political campus. Since in power, ABVP has taken all forms of mobilization to disseminate the Hindutva ideology in university grounds. In their one year tenure, university has become the limelight in Media’s eyes. News papers like The Hindu and Times of India are covering all the campus related stories in unprecedented manner. Sensibilities are impaired on regular basis. Dalits, Muslims, women related issues are circulating in campus environs as never before. The most significant issues in recent include Suicide (death) of Senthil Kumar, a Dalit student pursuing his PhD, the sexual harassment case against Manydas, sports Secretary of students Union, ABVP and now ABVP’s invitation to Subramaniam Swamy, staunch Hindutva politician as the chief guest in  University cultural programme, Sukoon.

Recently in Sukoon, a major cultural festival Subramaniam Swamy, comical figure in Tamil Nadu politics made anti minority remarks, sparking colossal protests by Students federation of India (SFI), Ambedkar Students association (ASA), Dalit Students union (DSU) and already ghettoized Urdu department students. Now the question that arises is politics of ABVP by inviting Subramaniam Swamy. Subramaniam Swamy always has remained staunch supporter of uniform civil code in India. This ideology of Swamy has always fetched him as paramount spot among his co believers. ABVP, in campus in an ideal sense has tried to prove by inviting Swamy. Swamy opposes religious conversions and considers conversion as violence. But the interesting departure in his argument arises when Swamy considers that if an India Muslim or Christian changes his religion to Hinduism today; he doesn’t regard it as conversion because it is a return to the Hindu fold of those whose ancestors had been forcibly converted.

But Swami here ignores the fact that it’s been Under Hinduism that Dalits or lower castes had been made to suffer since centuries. That is what the case happened with Senthil Kumar, a Dalit PhD scholar, who was compelled to commit suicide. The structures in his Physics department were structured in such a diplomatic Brahmanical way, that poor Senthil was not left with any hope than committing suicide. Here In southern states of India, every thing is determined by caste. Swami indeed takes deep pride in Brahmanism and Kshatriyahood, who had refused to convert. But the question is why is it that all Brahmans and Kshatriyas refused to convert while there was not at least a modicum of resistance from lower castes. Intelligent mind can comprehend the rationale without thinking twice. It is only because there were in Swamian terms Dhimmituded. According to Swami, Dhimmi is Muslim concept. He believes that according to Shariat, non believers should be treated as second class citizens and thus always suppressed. Here lies the fact, that it is his experience with the Hinduism while talking about Islam. It is the approach which had always been shown towards lower castes. So Swami applies same theory to Muslims in India.
Swami exceeds Schmitt, by justifying that Muslims who are ready and declare with pride that their ancestors were Hindus have the space in Hindu India. This is like Bush’s war on terrorism claiming to fight for humanity without having knowledge about humanity. Schmitt doesn’t believe in justification, and always believes in demarcated world of friend and foe. Swami wants to fight fundamentalism without knowing what fundamentalism is all about. He believes that 75% of Muslims in India are non problematic for the nation and can assimilated while it is only rest 25 % who concern him most and are troublesome. If these happen to be the arguments of a person whom you invite for exceptional programme, then obviously confrontation is mandatory.

ABVP, in HCU, despite knowing the fact took the challenge by inviting such a fickle personality. The students were just asking for apology in order to prevent such remarks being made inside the harmony ridden campus in future. The attitude shown by the ABVP was not only awkward but also historical. It was for the first time the seeds of communalism were sown and also defended. ABVP despite admitting the mistake went on defending Swami. Sukoon, which happens to be a cultural festival was used as a tool to enhance the seed of fanaticism, called Hindutva.