The Jerusalem synagogue attack should not be the tipping point

World leaders, including US President Barack Obama, have condemned Tuesday’s attack in the Kehilat Bnei Torah, at Har Nof, in West Jerusalem where two Palestinian cousins killed five people — four Jews who were praying and a police officer — and injured eight others.
Daniel Carmon, Israeli ambassador to India, too condemned the attack saying: “Incitement and the glorification of terrorists by the Palestinian leadership is a fast track to violence and terror itself...We must take every effort to delink religion and terrorism, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi said himself in the Australian Parliament on Tuesday.”
This spike in attacks against Jews in Israel should be of concern to all who hope to see an end to the tension in the region. Tension has been brewing for some time now after news spread that Israel had plans of altering the present arrangement of prayers at the Temple Mount, revered by both the Muslims and Jews. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has denied any such plans and said that Hamas has been spreading these “lies”.
It is encouraging that Mahmoud Abbas, President of the state of Palestine and chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), has condemned the “acts of violence no matter their source”, but as Netanyahu has said it “is not enough”. To bring any semblance of peace back to the region Abbas has to do more than express shock and regret, especially at a time when such acts of terror are pushing the holy city to the brink. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is the second largest PLO member, has claimed credit for Tuesday’s attack further putting pressure on Abbas.
If the recent attacks in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem can be attributed to lone wolf attacks by disgruntled Palestinians, Tuesday’s attack stands out for the planning that seems to have gone behind it. The Kehilat Bnei Torah in Har Nof is in a Jewish locality and unless there was extensive planning the cousins could not have attacked the synagogue.
While Netanyahu has promised to “settle the score with every terrorist” both sides must be careful to not let Tuesday’s attack set off a string of attacks on worshippers — as in February 1994, when a US-born Jewish doctor killed 30 Palestinians in a mosque in Hebron and in March 2002, when a Palestinian suicide bomber killed 30 civilians and injured more than 140 during a Passover seder in Netanya.
(This appeared in the Hindustan Times on November 20)

Is NaMo reaching out to the Muslims? Not in Uttar Pradesh

Rajnath Singh (left) and Narendra Modi

The importance of Uttar Pradesh in India’s electoral politics needs no elaboration. With 80 Lok Sabha seats, no party that wants to form a government at the Centre can ignore the state. Elections over the decades, with a few exceptions, have shown that the party which wins UP either forms the government at the Centre or becomes a major ally in a coalition running the government in New Delhi. Another reason that keeps UP in the spotlight is that it is home to many high-profile constituencies, like Rae Bareli, Amethi, Varanasi, Lucknow, etc. Varanasi, in UP, will probably be the most-talked about constituency as BJP’s prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi and AAP’s Arvind Kejriwal are contesting from here. That Mr Modi chose Varanasi as one of the two seats he is contesting from reflects the state’s importance to the BJP.

Narendra Modi with Muslim leaders

With Muslims forming about 18% of the state’s population, their importance cannot be overlooked. Given this, it is surprising that of the 75 candidates the BJP has announced in UP, there is not even one candidate from the Muslim community. On the face of it an analysis on religious lines is not always the right approach, but, for a party that is claiming to be more ‘inclusive’ and keeping a distance from the hardline Hindutva it has been associated with, this void is glaring. The BJP, especially under Mr Modi, has made an effort — or it seems — to reach out to the Muslim community. Party president Rajnath Singh’s “try us once…” comment was widely perceived as an effort to bring the minority community closer to the BJP and thereby boost its chances in the elections. The party was quick to clarify that Mr Singh’s comment was not an apology for the 2002 riots in Gujarat, but an assurance that it will not shy away from apologising for any future mistake. Its list of candidates from UP, however, tell a different story.
The BJP is counting on the upper caste votes and is building on the support of the OBCs. Back-of-the-envelope estimates predict around 40 seats for the party in the state. In the state’s crowded electoral pool this is a commanding figure. But the party will have to put its money where its mouth is. This also gives other parties, especially the Congress that has fielded 11 Muslims from the state, a stick to beat the BJP. This is a criticism the BJP cannot wish away.

Malady of state defining religion

On Monday, June 22, French President Nicolas Sarkozy created history in at least two ways. With his address to lawmakers at the historic Chateau at Versailles, he became the first president in 136 years to address a gathering at the venue. The Greens and communist kept away from the address stating that the selection of the venue smacked of Sarkozy’s thirst for power.

The other was his denouncement of the burqa worn by Muslim women as a sign of ‘subservience and debasement’. France has a substantial population of Muslims and at around five million it is the largest in Western Europe, the ‘developed’ side of the continent. French authorities have agreed to set up a commission to study the spread of burqa wearing after 60 MPs signed a petition to this effect demanding an inquiry.

In 2004, France imposed a ban on wearing apparel that had a religious insignia to schools. This included the hijab, Sikh turbans, Jewish skullcaps and crucifixes. This created a stir but was later eased. Sarkozy’s is not a lone voice but one of the many across Europe who think that the burqa, hijab and niqab are a hindrance to personal freedom. Voices of dissent have risen in other parts of Europe and the world. In 2003 the schools in Sweden were allowed to ban burqa’s while the Dutch stopped short of banning it in 2008. Not to forget the Sikh protest in Vancouver, among other places, against a ban on turbans in Canada.

As all debates have two sides and so does this. While Sarkozy, and the European community, which gives paramount importance to individual freedom, might have a point in terming the burqa as a means of subjugating women and treating them as ‘mobile prisons’, Sarkozy overstepped by saying that it was ‘not a religious symbol’. Religion, at best, should not be a subject of national debate and its practices should not be defined by the secular democracy.

That Sarkozy has said this at a time when France is going through a crisis also indicates that its principle of ethnic assimilation is failing – a fact he observed in his speech while stating that the present immigration model was not working. Sarkozy’s reaction can also be attributed to France’s near xenophobic adherence to guarding its or secularism which is its religion. But what the authorities fail to realise is that if they manage laicite to pass a resolution banning the burqa in public places, it would be a great injustice towards women who enjoy a certain level of freedom because it would further lead to the cloistering of womenfolk.

The irony in the whole episode is that after pronouncing the burqa’s as not , Sarkozy and Carla Bruni were playing good hosts at the Elysee Palace to the Emir of Qatar Sheik Hamad Bin Jassem Al Thani who was joined by one of his wives Sheika Mozah, whose head was covered in an elegant turban.
(Edited version of this can be found for six days from day of post at http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?Title=Intention+unveiled&artid=NxWzmhVMuEA%3d&SectionID=RRQemgLywPI%3d&MainSectionID=RRQemgLywPI%3d&SectionName=XQcp6iFoWTvPHj2dDBzTNA%3d%3d)