Samajwadi Party leader communalises terror
Senior Samajwadi Party leader Kamal Farooqi's outrageous remark that terror suspect Yasin Bhatkal must not be victimised merely because he is a Muslim, reflects another low that leaders of his kind have touched when it comes to playing the politics of religion. Mr Farooqi has been going around clarifying his shocking statement through various nuances. First, that his opinion must not be taken as his party's official stand since he expressed it in his “personal capacity”; second, he firmly holds the view that any person convicted of terrorism against the country must be “hanged” regardless of his or her religion; third, that he voiced his apprehension in the backdrop of certain cases in which the security agencies had harassed “innocent” Muslims. None of his after-thoughts is fit to be considered, because the core of his stand remains undiluted: That Bhatkal must be treated with care because he is a Muslim. It does not matter to him that the arrested terrorist is responsible for the killing of some 300 innocent Indians in attacks across several parts of the country, including Uttar Pradesh where Mr Farooqi's party rules. He does not appear concerned that Bhatkal had forged links with anti-India elements across the borders and was among the most wanted men here. If terrorism has no religion, as Mr Farooqi has been at pains to underline after he came under severe fire from many quarters including the Congress, why did he go out of his way to emphasise that Bhatkal is a MuslimIJ If some members of the Muslim community have been dealt with unfairly by our security agencies, as he alleges, they have legal recourse to address their grievances; indeed, many have taken refuge in the law and are demanding justice. But those cases are neither analogous with that of Yasin Bhatkal nor can they be used to seek preferential treatment for the arrested hardcore terrorist. Mr Farooqi must keep his parochial outlook to himself on matters of national interest that cut across party and religious lines.
But it would be erroneous to interpret in isolation Mr Farooqi's uncalled for comment. Regardless of his claim that his views do not necessarily reflect those of his party, the remarks must be read with the Samajwadi Party's long-standing obsession to pander to the Muslim vote-bank. In the wake of the Batla House encounter in which a brave officer of Delhi Police sacrificed his life while combating terrorists, Mr Farooqi's party (along with certain members of the Congress) had raised doubts about the credibility of the incident because the accused happened to be Muslims. The religious affiliation became more relevant than the fact that the accused were enemies of the nation. The Samajwadi Party's many bids to extend all sorts of reservations to the minority community in brazen violation of the Constitution, and to use the fear of a non-existent communal problem while shunting out IAS officer Durga Shakti Nagpal and banning the Vishwa Hindu Parishad's 84-Kosi Yatra, are all part of a similar drive to appease the Muslim community. But Mr Farooqi and his party must realise that the community can see through their gameplan to divide, create communal discord and rule. Short-term electoral gains cannot be placed above national security.