Last night I had a discussion with two of my closest friends. A debate that we generally have only in the confines of our home, and mostly in good humour. It’s said that religion, politics and sex should not be discussed in the public domain, therefore we try avoiding a debate on these issues publicly. The topic of the debate this time, however, was not any one of the three, but something related that is probably being discussed all over the world today. Something like a “clash of civilization” debate, where my friends were on one side teasing me for being a pseudo-secular.

In India, post 1989, it is fashionable to deride people who are liberal in the matter of religion. They are tauntingly christened as ‘pseudo- secularists’. On similar lines, to be anti-Nehru is also a fashion these days. Humanism has ceased to be a point of discussion and of concern to the generation to which I belong. The majority of the present generation fails to distinguish between ‘Majoritism’ and Democracy, and therefore the minority bashing. Every word spoken or any action supportive of minority is treated as ‘appeasement’ and earns the epitaph of being pseudo secularist.

My family has always imbibed in me the secular ideals, and that is how my brother and I think and react to certain situations. A few years back, it was all too simple and acceptable but now, our reactions invite glares and taunts. “You live in the times of Gandhi, people like you are responsible for the way the minorities behave in this country, and the most common of all, you guys are hopelessly pseudo-secular.”

Well, is it wrong to be secular, it is wrong to believe in equal rights for everyone? I don’t think so.

Whatever, and I repeat, whatever may be the reasons or justifications, one can’t generalise a religion or a community of people. Yes, the facts may point towards certain members of a certain community but does that give us the right to demonise an entire community?

Since 9/11 in the world, and in India more so since 26/11, Muslims have come under the line of fire. Everyone who is visibly Muslim is looked at with suspicion and thought of as a terrorist, as if there is no distinction between a the two. Some terrorists may be Muslims, but how does that give us the right to think of every Muslim individual as a threat. The anger and the rage that everyone, especially the victims, felt when Mumbai was under siege is natural, and quite understandable, but that rage and anger instead of being directed at some innocent individuals should be directed at the governing authorities who let the incident happen.

But again, it is intriguing to note that the suspicion and mistrust is selective, and is reserved for a certain segment of the community that falls easy prey to the radar of suspicion. The common man, not the ones who are famous and sought after, but the ones who can easily be typecast as the bad elements. This common man seem to have all the traits that are required to betray the nation. He is hardcore, religious and hot-blooded, who will go to any length for the sake of his religion. The others like actors, cricketers, fashion designers, businessmen, etc. are outside the purview of scepticism because of their important designation, or the power they hold. Actors like Aamir Khan, ShahRukh Khan; Cricketer Irfan Pathan, etc. are all beyond the ambit of the said bias, because they have a certain image and hold some power. Their achievements are accepted as our own, but a failure on the part of an ordinary Muslim, calls for all sorts of jabs and digs.

If this is not selective criticism, then what is it?