It is a tribute to the success of India’s uniquely perverted secularism that only Muslim leaders and intellectuals have seen fit to respond to Mohammad Azharuddin’s claim that he is being accused in the international match-fixing scandal on account of belonging to the minority community. Cornered in the rising tide of revelations emanating from South Africa’s prompt investigation into the cricket scam, it somehow comes as no surprise that Azharuddin should invoke his community background to attempt to evade investigation into his conduct. What is shocking is that no responsible political party or non-Muslim public figure has refuted his specious allegation.
The Minister of State for Sports, Shahnawaz, has done well to call a spade a spade and tell Azharuddin to face the CBI, rather than raise extraneous issues, to exonerate himself. While most political parties have typically preferred to wait to see which way the wind blows before committing themselves, the BJP cannot be excused on this ground. This is because the BJP has specifically dissociated itself from the mindless appeasement of minorities in the name of secularism, and even conducted a high-voltage campaign on the issue barely a decade ago. While it is true that the party has put a moratorium on issues such as the common civil code, this does not mean that it evades its responsibilities in order to protect itself against possible charges of anti-minorityism.
In the present case, Azharuddin has virtually demanded that on the issue of match-fixing and his alleged connection with Dawood Ibrahim and his gang, he should be judged under a different yardstick because he belongs to a minority community. Of course, he has not gone so far as to invoke the Muslim criminal code, as that is rather less comfortable to live under the shariah than under the personal law. But he has called for differential treatment, and in India’s peculiar political culture, this can only mean preferential treatment.
In one sense this is not surprising. There has been a steep decline in honesty in public life over the past two decades, particularly since Rajiv Gandhi’s witless surrender to Muslim obscurantism in the Shah Bano case. This has been aggravated by the mindless refusal of politicians and secular intellectuals to accept the legitimacy of Hindu sentiment on Ram Jamnabhoomi, Kashmir, and a host of other sensitive issues. As a result, a sterile and needless confrontation is being prolonged – Muslims cannot reclaim the site; Hindus cannot rebuild the temple. Of course, this has been to the advantage of parties competing for the Muslim vote to buttress their support base, but has yielded little benefit to the community as a whole.
What it has done, nevertheless, is to gift disproportionate weightage to high profile Muslims, regardless of the legitimacy or decency of their positions, and give the general impression that they can get away with anything, with impunity. Some instances come to mind. One is Dilip Kumar’s astonishing assertion that notwithstanding Pakistan’s butchery in Kargil, the Nishan-e-Pakistan was a great ‘honour’ bestowed upon him, which he could not in fairness be asked to surrender. The actor did not reconsider his position even after the horrendous saga at Kandahar, following which India made valiant efforts to have the international community declare Pakistan a rogue-state.
Another incident involves the nominated MP, Shahbana Azmi, a forceful proponent of the minority viewpoint. Some months ago, the actress had a dispute with a Shiv Sena member in the Rajya Sabha; the actual exchanges were expunged, so one never learnt what the issue was about. Azmi, however, went to town with her views, sentiments, emotions et al through both the print and electronic media, which simultaneously ‘blacked out’ the other side of the dispute. This is not to imply that the Shiv Sena MP was right; he may well have been horribly wrong. But the media did nothing to promote a fair and honest debate in the country by taking up one side of the story and deliberately guillotining the other. Such a rampant growth of minority ‘rights’, without reasonable limitations to protect the rights of others, can only promote a warped sense of right and wrong and hinder the development of a moral landscape.
Yet our secular intellectuals seem hell-bent upon reinforcing an utterly negative sense of separateness among members of the minority community. Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Prof. Imtiaz Ahmad makes the monstrous claim that if Azharuddin emerges unscathed from an enquiry, his claim of a communal bias in the allegations against him would become credible. Try as I might, I am unable to fathom how this can be so. More disgracefully, Ahmad virtually endorses Azharuddin’s claim to be targeted on account of being a Muslim by stating that “when the secular credentials of the State are in doubt, more and more people will use this plea as defence. This is unfortunate” (The Hindustan Times, 18 June 2000).
It is shameful that Ahmad should unleash a verbal assault upon the State (read BJP government) which has so far had no role in l’affaire Azharuddin. And the country is in dangerous health if citizens just lash out at the ruling political establishment on being caught in purely criminal offences.
Indeed, it is precisely here that Azharuddin has miscalculated grievously. Unlike the accusations leveled by Manoj Prabhakar against former skipper Kapil Dev, the public charges against Azharuddin have come from South Africa. They have cropped up in the course of an internal enquiry in that country, in much the same manner as the Bofors payoff scandal erupted in Sweden, but continues to reverberate in Indian politics till this day. They have surfaced above all, because of the alacrity with which South Africa has reacted to the Delhi Police’s tape-recording of Hansie Cronje and a prominent bookie. To respond to the painful confessions of Cronje and his colleagues with the puerile assertion that South Africa has hatched a ‘revenge plot’ and that a minority is being targeted, is an unimaginative and pathetic defence.
All said and done, however, there is one aspect of Azharuddin’s fears that the authorities would do well to take note of, provided, of course, that the government is serious about cleaning the augean stables of Indian cricket. The first is his apprehension that the media may guide the investigations by focusing the spotlight on its pet ‘hates’ (which happen to include Azharuddin), and ignoring the evidence against favoured (though tarnished) ‘heroes,’ thus enabling them to get away.
While the government can hardly concern itself with how the media chooses to conduct itself, it can and should clarify without further delay the identity of the cricketer who actually made the phenomenal Rs. sixteen crore disclosure under the VDIS amnesty scheme. Since the law is clear that the amnesty granted does not cover immunity against offences, there will not be any breach of confidence. Azharuddin has also made the startling revelation that over a dozen well-known bookies attended the wedding of a well-regarded cricketer, and that one of them was close enough to present a diamond necklace (which was reportedly accepted).
The BJP would do well to recognize that notwithstanding the formal disclaimers, prominent Muslims are watching the Azharuddin affair closely, and it is the government that is in the dock. It can acquit itself if it ensures that all those found guilty in the match-fixing, however exalted or humble, are brought to justice. Indeed, this is how it should be.
The Pioneer, 20 June 2000