KN Panikkar exposes fundamentalists in Kerala

By KN Panikkar in The HIndu

A lecturer with Newman College in the town of Thodupuzha in Kerala, T.J. Joseph, was brutally attacked on July 4, 2010, allegedly by members of a fundamentalist group. It was an act of retribution: Mr. Joseph had framed a question for an examination for his students in the college, which offended their religious sentiments. The punishment meted out by the aggrieved group was to chop off his palm: it was reminiscent of medieval practices.

The authorities of the college, apparently endorsing the claim of the fundamentalists, suspended the ‘delinquent' teacher and ordered an enquiry. The enquiry committee concluded that he had deliberately subscribed to an activity that promoted feelings of enmity between different communities/ religions.

The controversial question paper by itself had not lead to any manifest enmity between different religious communities, as the enquiry report had suspected. But the fundamentalists created a law and order situation by resorting to rioting.

Consequently, the lecturer was dismissed from service, and thus debarred from “future employment in any of the institutions maintained by or affiliated to the university.”

Mr. Joseph had had no record of communal bias or instigation during his career in the college. He is reported to have been a conscientious teacher with a rapport with students and cordial relations with colleagues: this is evident from the public testimony of students. To them his dismissal was thoroughly unexpected, and they struck work demanding his reinstatement. But the college authorities did not relent. They took the position that they would reconsider their action only if the Muslim community made an appeal to reinstate him, or the court issued an order to that effect. A highly irrational act was thus sought to be imbued with legal respectability and given a communal character.

This incident is symptomatic of the creeping influence of fundamentalism that has led to violence in the country at large and certain recent outbursts in Kerala. What has happened to Mr. Joseph is also indicative of the vulnerability of academic space and the authoritarian tendencies of certain managements of educational institutions in the State. Mr. Joseph almost lost a limb (it has since been reattached through a difficult surgical procedure) to the brutality of religious fundamentalism, and he has now been deprived of his job by an insensitive and inhumane college management. While the fundamentalists resorted to the act in order to terrorise the ‘deviants' and ensure that their religious fiats are carried out by all, the college management saw it as an opportunity to enforce discipline and to nip in the bud the influence of critical and rational thinking. Both actions are highly deplorable. Unfortunately, these have not led to a sufficiently strong reaction from the public.

It appears that there is ambiguity in the public mind about Mr. Joseph's own role. The reason is that the charge against him involves meddling with religious sentiments. Although new religions and sects emerge out of non-conformism and as a critique of the present, the established religions mostly see their interest to be linked with the status quo. That was perhaps why the Catholic Church was not moved by appeals to their humanitarian and philanthropic credentials. The Church has now issued a pastoral letter supporting and justifying the action of the college management. It is surprising that in a State that is surcharged by protests and a variety of public interest litigation processes, except for teachers' and students' organisations the liberal intelligentsia has not come forward in defence of Mr. Joseph.

The ‘crime' he committed was to frame a question by reproducing a conversation between God and ‘Muhammad' from a text written by film-maker P.T. Kunhi Mohammed, who is a believer. The ‘mistake' he made was to change the name of the character of a lunatic in the original, to ‘Muhammad.' The fundamentalist group was enraged by the use of the name of the Prophet.

Why Mr. Joseph changed the name is unknown. He is reported to have stated that he was not influenced by any religious reason but used a shorter version of Mr. Kunhi Mohammed's work. ‘Muhammad' is a popular name among Muslims, and there is nothing in the text of the question paper to suggest that it was the Prophet who was implied. Nor did it contain any critique of any religion — including Islam, Christianity and Hinduism.

But to a fundamentalist group that resorts to terror tactics as an instrument of coercion, it provided an opportunity to further its cause. Among Hindus, Rama and Krishna are popular names and are worshipped as incarnations of god. Imagine a situation in which a reference to these names, in literature or academic texts or in a question paper, is considered blasphemous! If this happens, soon writers will find it difficult to give a name to their characters.

That fundamentalists indulge in such irrational behaviour is not surprising. They still live in medieval times, and with hardly any respect for human values. But that cannot be expected from those who have taken the responsibility of imparting education to people. The authorities of Newman College where Mr. Joseph has taught for 25 years quickly took the questionable step of first suspending and then dismissing him — all in the name of communal harmony and secularism.

Unfortunately, they did not realise that the greatest threat to secularism and communal harmony is religious fundamentalism. That is why the management's offer to withdraw the dismissal orders if the Muslim community made an appeal for such a withdrawal, becomes self-contradictory. The management seems to have overlooked the fact that by doing so it was reinforcing the communal, and not secular, consciousness. What was done would only help legitimise the fundamentalist forces and not strengthen secularism, as the college authorities claim. In fact, they should have stood by Mr. Joseph and defended his academic freedom as a teacher. Instead, they compromised with fundamentalism and extended to it a helping hand — also sullying the Christian character of the institution.

It is high time that the managements of public-funded private institutions are brought under a democratic structure, so that healthy norms prevail in these institutions and higher education becomes accessible to larger sections of the population, including the poor. It is to be hoped that either through legal intervention or democratic struggles Mr. Joseph would be reinstated, or adequately compensated.

But the brutality of the fundamentalists on the one hand, and the irresponsibility of educational entrepreneurs on the other, have already vitiated the academic atmosphere. In order to overcome this situation, new steps are called for, both from the part of the government and civil society.

It also raises the larger, even if contentious, issue of the management of education in Kerala. Since 1984, the government, through a system of financial aid, meets the entire expenses towards payment of salary and maintenance of private colleges. The share of the management is meagre. What the managements typically do, however, is to milk these institutions through various means. It is common knowledge that most of these colleges indulge in corrupt practices, both in the matter of appointment of teachers and grant of admission to students. Since there is practically no control exercised by the government or the universities over aided institutions, many managements treat colleges as a source of income. Some of them also fatten their purses by conducting self- financing courses, utilising facilities created by public funds. The Central government has introduced in Parliament a Bill to prevent the prevalent unfair practices in the field of education. How far it will succeed in doing so is anybody's guess.

Religious fundamentalists are on the rise among Muslims and Hindus. Permitting them to influence the practices of education has long-term implications. The most dangerous possibility is the state of social and political consciousness such compromises would produce. Compromising with religious fundamentalism, as the authorities of Newman College have done, is likely to lead the country to Talibanism.

To ban or not to ban: Editorial in Hindu

Editor’s note: This editorial appeared on July 16, 2010

From the time President Nicolas Sarkozy declared in June 2009 that the burqa was “not welcome” in France, it has been clear that his government was serious about introducing a ban on the veil worn by some Muslim women and on another more severe garment called the niqab, which leaves only the eyes uncovered. The French government is now closer to this after the National Assembly approved legislation for it. It has to be passed by the Senate next, and a constitutional Council could yet void it. The proposed law is very much in line with France's inspiring secular traditions that keep religion strictly out of the public sphere, where the social contract is based exclusively on universal values enshrined in the country's laws. In April 2010, similar legislation was approved by the Belgian parliament's lower house, and a vote by the upper house is awaited later this year. Other European countries are also mulling a ban on the veil. But France, which passionately values a secular national identity over the ethnic or religious affiliations of its immigrants, has never shied away from forcing the pace on complex issues relating to religion and their place within the larger national identity. If this was first aimed at checking the influence of the Catholic church on public life, the spotlight is now on Islam. The proposed ban makes eminent sense through a feminist lens. The burqa (not to mention the niqab) is unquestionably an oppressive garment that seeks, as Mr. Sarkozy pointed out, to keep those who wear it imprisoned “behind a screen.” It is nowhere prescribed in the Koran but has been imposed on millions of women by sections of the clergy — all of them male — who have interpreted religious texts to suit their backward-looking religious or political agenda. That many Muslim women seem willing to embrace the veil these days as a symbol of their piety, modesty, and virtue, or as a political statement of their Muslim identity, is no indication of female agency. It speaks more of their successful co-option in a misogynist project that is the antithesis of liberté, égalité, fraternité — values that go back to the French Revolution and are the proclaimed national motto of France.
However, there is a serious downside to the move to ban the burqa and the niqab. In the post-9/11 atmosphere, such a law is likely to be viewed as an instrument to persecute and humiliate Muslims.
It could lead to further radicalisation within the fold and inflame tensions between majority and minority populations in Europe. The reality is that only a small number of women in France's estimated five million Muslim population wear the veil. Fears that a ban could end up criminalising Muslims in European societies are not misplaced, given the Islamophobia in the west. The right-wing French government's unfavourable disposition towards immigrant populations does not help either. In March 2010, the Council of State, which will examine the proposed ban for its constitutionality, observed that a complete ban might, in fact, violate the French Constitution and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Conventional Freedoms. It seemed more comfortable with the idea of a limited ban rooted in reasons of security. But even if the Council strikes down the law, the intriguing social, philosophical, and political issues the burqa and the niqab raise will not go away. For literary guidance on what might happen if the tension between an uncompromisingly secular state and radical religious identity assertion — focussed in this case on the mysterious phenomenon of the “headscarf girls” committing suicide in Kars in Turkey during the early 1990s — is allowed to sharpen and grow, there is no better text than Orhan Pamuk's magnificent novel, Snow.

Mark of the Taliban: Editorial in The Hindu

The act of a gang that cut off the hand of a college teacher, by wielding an axe on a thoroughfare in Kerala in broad daylight, had Talibanism writ all over it. The State has been noted historically for the peaceful co-existence of different faiths and beliefs. This act of barbarism, however, points to the rise of blood-thirst driven by religious fundamentalism that certain fringe elements may be seeking to impose on the State. That it was a planned operation carried out with brutal intent adds to the shock. Without reference to the nature of the alleged provocation behind the act, what has happened is a challenge to civilised society and the rule of law. After all, the management of the college concerned had suspended the teacher for an inappropriate reference to the Prophet that appeared in an examination question paper and apologised for the aberration. The law has been taking its course and a criminal case against the teacher was being pursued. What the criminal fanatics have managed to do is to put on the defensive those who support the secular-democratic cause, and give a handle to majoritarian intolerance. The culprits need to be apprehended and prosecuted immediately.
If there is a silver lining here, it is that every political party in Kerala, organisations across the country representing both the religions concerned, and democratically minded sections of society have been prompt in condemning Sunday's savagery. Hearteningly, several Muslim youth organisations came forward to offer blood to the victim as he lay fighting for life in a Kochi hospital. To its credit, the State government has acted swiftly and decisively at every stage — a fact acknowledged amply during the course of a discussion in the State Assembly. The House condemned the incident in one voice. Most important, the atrocity did not trigger any communal backlash. But there is a larger lesson here. Freedom of expression has increasingly come under attack from religious fanatics in democratic and secular India and it is the duty of society and the political system to intervene more effectively to defend those who are targeted even if they express unpopular views. At the same time, those who work in academia and those who value intellectual freedom and creativity must be sensitive to the political-social contexts, which are quite often fragile if not volatile. All sections must unite to ensure that the heart-rending tragedy of a teacher making a misjudgment and ending up losing his hand to an act of Talibanesque savagery is never repeated.

Barbarians on the prowl: Editorial in The New Indian Express

What Kerala witnessed on Sunday when a college lecturer returning from church was waylaid, dragged out of his car and his right palm was chopped off is horrendous, to say the least. The victim, T J Joseph, earned infamy in March last when he was accused of preparing a question paper in which a blasphemous reference was made to Prophet Mohammed. Nobody in his senses would approve of any action that wounds the religious feelings of any section of people. When he was promptly arrested on several criminal charges, everybody considered it as just desserts for the ‘learned man’. On its part, the management of Newman College, Thodupuzha, suspended him from service. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination could it be concluded that he had gone scot-free.
The question paper he prepared was based on the writing of a Muslim littérateur about the imaginary dialogue a mad man had with the Almighty. Joseph is alleged to have interpolated the passage with a mischievous reference to the Prophet. Whether he personally did it or it was done by someone else at the printing stage is what the court would go into before taking an appropriate decision in the case. Under the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence that is still followed in the country, Joseph is entitled to the benefit of the doubt till the prosecution is able to prove conclusively the serious charges against him. Thus, in the eyes of the law, he is an innocent person, entitled to protection by the state. Unfortunately, the state failed in its duty as it preferred to be an onlooker in this case.
The police was told that unidentified persons were threatening Joseph ever since he was released on bail. Given the kind of protest the question paper had evoked and the communal nature of the issue, the government should have provided him security. But by failing to do so, it made the task of the religious ‘warriors’ easier. When Islamists threatened Salman Rushdie for writing The Satanic Verses, he was given protection, not because the British government approved of his writing but because it did not want anyone to take the law into his own hands. Under the rule of law, there are laws to deal with offenders like Joseph. That job cannot be delegated to the so-called custodians of Islam who, by cutting off his palm, have shown that they have only utter contempt for the rule of law.

Barbaric act : Editorial in Deccan Herald

The brutal attack on a professor of a college in Kerala last Sunday when he was returning from a church service was shocking in its intent and barbarity. His right palm was chopped off by a gang that waylaid and attacked him. He sustained other injuries too; his mother and sister were also attacked. He had made a controversial reference to Prophet Mohammed in an internal question paper prepared for students of the college in March this year. The reference is considered to have been derogatory. All sections of society had condemned the professor’s action which hurt religious sentiments. He was suspended by the college management when the controversy broke out and was arrested. The matter is before the court and if the charges are proved he stands to earn punishment. There is still some confusion about at what stage the offending words found their way into the question paper. Whether he was solely responsible for the offence or not is yet to be decided. In any case a public apology was made and it was made clear that there was no intention to hurt the feelings of any community.

But the punishment meted out to him by the gang of attackers was terrible and deserves the strongest condemnation. It is difficult to imagine that such cruelty and bestiality is resorted to a democratic society. Physical punishment of the kind the professor was subjected to has rarely been heard of in the country. It flouts the rule of law and all norms of civilised conduct. Nobody should be allowed to take the law into their hands and punish offenders for their crimes, however serious the offences are. Such violence becomes all the more dangerous when religious sentiments are involved. It can lead to communal discord and go out of control.

Some of the attackers have been arrested and the police are on the lookout for others. They reportedly belong to an organisation called the Popular Front of India and had planned the attack for over a month. A number of Muslim organisations have rightly condemned their misdeed, asserting that it was most un-Islamic, and demanded the strongest punishment for them. Members of the Jamaat-e-Islami donated blood for the professor in hospital. The culture of intolerance and violence that has been growing in the country has created the environment for the dastardly act. Only very few subscribe to that culture but they poison the society.

How far is Saudi Arabia from Kerala?

By John Cheeran
How far is Saudi Arabia from Kerala?
Saudi Arabia is a state of mind, a state of mind intolerant of other points of view. It comes as no surprise to me that Kerala is not far from that theocratic state as evidenced by the chopping off act on Sunday in Thodupuzha. Taliban have infiltrated Kerala’s body politic for a long time and the vengeful act that reeks of the primitive and barbaric justice system that Saudi Arabia swears by was put into practice by a band of thugs who swear by Islam.
On Sunday a university professor’s right wrist was chopped off in Thodupuzha, Kerala, by people who carry, what’s generally regarded as Muslim names.
It was no ordinary crime.
It was religious backlash and the man under the axe, TJ Jospeh, a Malayalam professor, was suspended by Newman’s College, Thodupuzha, for including a question derogatory to the founder of Islam, in an examination paper. Now, Joseph, who went into hiding after those who were hurt by that question paper, raised a ruckus, had been arrested by the state police and later released on bail.
All that is fine. You can get offended for whatever slights you could imagine. In our democracy that has become a fundamental right for fundamentalists.
The point is that should we accept the rule of law or should we lie back and let Taliban take hold over us?
I have noticed that those who have a stake in this issue, LDF and UDF politicians, and especially, the leadership of assorted Muslim organizations in the state have condemned the barbaric act. They have made the routine noises about how violence is antithetical to Islam, etc.
It would be naïve to consider the chopping of the wrist as a stray event. May be no religion, on the face of it, allows for a vendetta as barbaric as that happened in Thodupuzha. But there has been a consent built over a period of time various religious communities that justifies any ugly and revolting deed if it is consecrated in the name of God.
It’s difficult to read Muslim mind in these troubled times and especially if you live in Kerala. Away from the public glare there has been a Muslim consciousness at play, fundamental in its thought, and fanned by petrodollars from the Middle East. And this Taliban are at work in various disguises, declaring at times solidarity with social causes only to further its own narrow and divisive agenda.
The intolerance against perceived slights to religious prophets and retaliations, purely inspired by a barbaric justice system, such as in Thodupuzha are dead give-aways that there is a tacit approval from the Muslim community for such heinous acts.
To confront this Taliban is the immediate responsibility of the Muslim leaders in Kerala. You cannot take the grievance that India has been unfair to Islam’s followers beyond a point.
Mind you, this is India. This is not Afghanistan. This is not Saudi Arabia. The political leadership on the left and right may well kiss the Middle East arse, but those who talk about pogrom in Gujarat should also remember that you cannot butcher men in the name of the most merciful.