THE ‘CARTOON’ CONTROVERSY
Danish gift to a scheming bigot

While there is now a move to defuse the Muslim infuriation over the blasphemous depiction of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, an Indian politician, Yaqoob Qureshi, is collaborating with the Muslim votebank politics of Mulayam Singh Yadav. By breathing fire and placing a bounty on the head of the cartoonist, Qureshi has played into the hands of those who want to portray the entire Muslim community as
radicals,terrorists and potential terrorists.

By Shahid Faridi

The 12 cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad-of which one has incensed the sane world-printed in September last year in a Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and reprinted brazenly in newspapers across Northern Europe in the following months in the name of "freedom of the press" and "freedom of expression", caused a worldwide uproar, primarily among Muslims but by no means limited to them. The one that has caused the maximum damage and has become the talking point is the illustration of the Prophet Mohammed with a fizzing bomb in place of his turban.

The Danish flag was torched by enraged Muslim protestors, Danish products remain boycotted in most Muslim countries-primarily in Saudi Arabia, which has a multimillion-dollar packaged food import arrangement with Danish companies such as Arla Foods, but also in the rest of West Asia-and ambassadors of Arab countries in Copenhagen truculently asked the Danish government to punish, or at least curtail, the errant newspaper and the several cartoonists involved. Arla, in fact, while announcing that it had ceased all production for its key West Asia dairy market, which brings the firm around € 348.4 million in sales per year, appealed to the Danish government to intervene in the matter.

The Danish government denounced the publication of the cartoons, but expressed its inability to act against Flemming Rose, the editor/publisher of the Rightwing paper, due to constraints within the Danish Constitution, which expressly forbids any interference, governmental or otherwise, in freedom of expression. In fact, more than any other Northern European nation, Denmark unbendingly sanctifies a secular mandate, despite having a Christian Catholic population of roughly 47 per cent (2001 estimate).

Most European countries allow absolute, unquestioning freedom to the press, most of which behaves responsibly most of the time-but not all of the time, as is evident. Some of the media is clearly denominational, and anti-Muslim partisanship seems to be the flavour of the day. The United Kingdom and France have laws that provide protection against blasphemy, but only blasphemy committed against Christianity, and against anti-Semitism. The Turkish immigrants in Germany, the Gastarbeiter who literally hauled the German economy out of the red by its bootstraps, are today the objects of neo-Nazi hate crimes. Turkey has yet to make it into the European Union (EU), reportedly because the EU is afraid that the addition of its massive Muslim population will dilute the EU's own predominantly Christian one. British Prime Minister Tony Blair tried to shoehorn into the House of Commons a law that would give protection against blasphemy to all religions, but came up against the Conservatives, who wouldn't give way.

Not that there haven't been incidents in the past where pictures of the Prophet were drawn and printed in magazines and newspapers. The reason for this unprecedented expression of outrage may not be far to seek. After the Cold War came to an end, in Hollywood films, Muslim 'terrorists'-or anyone with an apology of a beard and a voice like gravel and sand-have replaced Russians as the biggest threat to the US. The portrayal of Islam by sections of Western media as a violent religion, and of all Muslims as radicals, terrorists or potential terrorists, has had the community simmering with discontent for years now. All it needed was a spark.

Then came the cartoon depiction of the Prophet Mohammad as a terrorist. Largescale protests did not start immediately after the cartoon appeared, and not many Muslims noticed the offensive depiction of the Prophet, the anthropomorphising of whom is considered idolatry and thus banned in Islam; those Muslims who did notice, decided to ignore the idiocy. It was the blatantly unconcerned reprints in the larger, EU newspapers that detonated the issue.

At the Syrian capital, Damascus, an angry mob tried to burn down the Danish embassy. Indonesia went up in flames. People died in protests in Pakistan. Conciliatory appeals started flowing in from religious moderates in the West, who recognised the incendiary potential of the protests at a time of global Christian-Islamic distrust.

For all practical purposes, the reprinting of the cartoons across Europe, ignoring the sensitivities of Muslims, appears to be a deliberate attempt to incite the community and show it in a poor light in order to influence the public opinion in Europe, which has largely been against the "clash of civilisations" theory and against painting the entire global Muslim community as radical and violent.
India's large Muslim community reacted to the cartoons row with impressive moderation, despite attempts from some vested sections to incite violence. It would be interesting to make note of who in India are breathing fire trying to incite violence, and why they are doing so.

When the news about the offending cartoons reached India, the entire Muslim community, the Government of India and secular Hindus and members of other communities almost unanimously condemned the blasphemy involved. There seemed to be no combativeness from any quarter.
Muslim organisations such as the All-India Muslim Personal Law Board, the All-India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat, Muslims for Secular Democracy and many ulemas and individuals spoke out vehemently against the offending cartoons and demanded action against the offenders. But that's where matters came to a halt-there was no incitement to conflagration.

But, as is usual when moderation articulates itself, these voices found no prominence in the local media. What did, however, was an announcement by a minister in Uttar Pradesh government, Haji Yaqoob Qureshi, which was widely publicised by the print and the electronic media.

Yaqoob Qureshi, a minister for Haj and minority affairs, announced a reward of Rs 51 crore on the head of the Danish cartoonist who drew the offending ‘cartoon’: he was entirely uninformed of the fact that the 12 drawings in question, several of which had featured the Prophet Mohammed, had been made by a whole slew of cartoonists. His statement drew wide condemnation from the Muslim community and the political leadership of the country (See Voices of Sanity). Action was demanded against him, but his own chief minister, Mulayam Singh Yadav, refused to rein him in. The question is: Why?

The fact that the fortunes of Mulayam Singh Yadav's Samajwadi Party are on the decline in Uttar Pradesh is no state secret. Muslims, who once comprised part of his strong MY (Muslim-Yadav) combination, have moved en masse to the Bahujan Samaj Party. With the elections approaching, Mulayam Singh needed an issue to array the large Muslim votebank in Uttar Pradesh behind his party. The cartoon row was, thus, his godsend. Yaqoob Qureshi became a willing pawn in Mulayam Singh's political game, in which the Muslim community's image turned into collateral damage. But politics wins over altruism every time, and this time it was no different.

By getting Qureshi to launch his shrill campaign, Mulayam Singh wants to achieve two goals: one, to win back the support of illiterate and radical Muslims (not the moderates, who he isn't interested in, anyway, knowing that the dislike is mutual) by appearing to be their most committed and biggest supporter; and, two, to narrow down the ensuing elections to a two-party affair where the players would only be the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the Samajwadi Party.

Unfortunately, Mulayam's machinations have yielded him results that he would consider satisfactory. Members of the Hindu Mahasabha are already sitting on dharna outside Meerut's Collectorate demanding Qureshi's arrest. Uttar Pradesh may witness more such sit-ins by the BJP, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and their various wings in the coming days.

For Qureshi, his pronouncements and bounty-offering—an act that is proscribed by law but is often flouted, as was American televangelist Pat Robertson's televised demand to have Venezuelan Leftwing President Hugo Chavez assassinated—have yielded him rich political dividends. He has now replaced Azam Khan, Salim Sherwani and Shahid Siddiqui to become Muslim No 1 in the Samajwadi Party. Today, he is the darling of the reigning duo of his party—Mulayam Singh Yadav and (the beleaguered but still pugnacious) Amar Singh.

This is quite a feat for someone who had contested and won the previous Assembly election on the ticket of the Bahujan Samaj Party. All it took was an act of media idiocy on the other side of the world.

INTERVIEW: Haji Yaqoob Qureshi

Is it true that you were seeking political mileage from the Rs 51 crore-award you announced on the Danish cartoonist's head?
This isn't political theatre for me. I was only voicing the outrage the people of Meerut felt over this affair. Even my Hindu brethren in Meerut have expressed their anger. It was my call as a Muslim. The cartoonist is evil and he must pay for his acts. It is a matter of faith, not politics.

But with Assembly elections round the corner there's a feeling that you were using this case to notch up political numbers.
I do not bring politics into religious matters. It was simply my duty to echo the sentiments of the lakhs of enraged Muslims in my constituency.

While the cartoons were no doubt blasphemous, don't you think your act goes against the oath you took to uphold the dignity of law?
I have not committed any wrong. My call was against the Danish cartoonist who has violated the spirit of Islam, and this did not constitute any offence. I am prepared to sacrifice any thing for the Prophet.

But the reward…
If the police or the government can announce hefty rewards on wanted criminals, why can't I do the same against a person who has wronged millions of Muslims the world over? I again reiterate my offer to give Rs 51 crore—and in his weight in gold—to anyone who beheads that Shaitan. In fact, our government should also seek his trial.

Why has Samajwadi Party leader Amar Singh criticised you?
What Amar Singh said was his own view. My leader, Mulayam Singh, supported me. He said, "Hum Qureshi ke elaan se sahmat nahin hain par unki naaraazgi se sahmat hain (I disapprove of the announcement but at the same time Qureshi's anger has my support.)" If he asks for my resignation I will tender it.

How do you propose to raise the award money?
I do not have to raise the money. The people of Meerut will arrange it. Just the other day, the people of Meerut collected several lakhs, both in cash and in gold, in only 30 minutes. But I returned the money because we didn't need it just then.

But don't you feel that your call has again brought Indian Muslims into focus for all the wrong reasons? Hindu Rightists could use your call to polarise their community further.

I repeat that I was only echoing the outrage felt by Meerut's populace, including both Hindus and Muslims. My Hindu brothers wholly support my call against that devil. They, for their part, know that they have my full support when people like painter M F Hussain make obscene paintings of
goddesses Saraswati and Bharat Mata.