Silencing the minority

"I don't feel safe in this country. India is run by a government that favors Hindutva. These people treat us like outsiders. So, I live with fear. Why are you all reluctant to accept our existence?" asked Rameeza.

Arun was speechless. He noticed the tears in her eyes, and the sedate tone of her voice was quite evident. Apparently, they did not come out of sadness. They came after her frustration about how the country's rulers treated her and her community.

"I am glad the Perinthalmanna blast was by a Hindu. If it were a Muslim, it would have aggravated the backlash against the Muslims."

"What did we do wrong? I don't know. Why do some people keep treating every Muslim as a monster? Why is it different when a crime involves a person from another religion? I can't make sense of it. This is nothing but differential treatment," she said. It made Arun stand in silence for a second.

"Look at Adolf Hitler. He was always treated as a dictator by history. He killed millions of Jewish people. But was he ever tagged as a religious extremist? Now, compare this with Saddam Hussein. Why was he always associated with religion? You can see the difference, can't you?" Rameeza questioned, using her confident voice.

"It's mainly because the agenda is set in the USA. They are basically a religious nation layered with modernity. I think they hate to put Christianity in a spot," Arun replied.

That's when Noyal intervened. He had been listening to their conversation while tapping on his phone.

"Maybe true. But what you have said is real, Razee. I could have cited the Hitler example when I was having a debate with my friend. He questioned the Muslims. I thought hard for an example to shut him down. I could have used your example," Noyal stated.

The discussion was gaining momentum. The progression was natural. It started around a movie deemed 'anti-national' by the right-wing forces.

"But Rameeza, why do you want to oppose Empuraan? You think the movie is Islamophobic. But there is a thing called the character arc. You also need to know the background story of the film. I cannot share it in detail because it could emerge as a spoiler," said Arun, who is a cinephile.

He is of the view that films should be free of censorship. He also believes that 'propaganda movies' like The Kerala Story are not worthy of his time.

"Why is it mandatory to depict a Muslim as a terrorist? Tell me. What do you mean by terrorism? It is any unjust act that invokes fear. Tell me this. Why are Hindus rarely portrayed as terrorists? It is always the Muslims who are labeled as villains. Then there are movies like Chaava and Padmavat, which are not based on true events, where anti-heroes are manufactured," Rameeza replied.

"What you've said about Chaava and Padmavat is correct. Regarding Empuraan, I think it is because the plot is developed thematically. In the sense that the riot had two religious communities. The Muslims were on the receiving end. So, don't you think a filmmaker can set a context to develop the narrative?" asked Arun.

"First of all, the filmmaker in focus is not a Muslim. How does he know what is happening in our religion? Remember, he is not from our religion. So, how can he depict it correctly?" Rameeza responded.

The conversation then switched to Ambedkar.

"If India had made Ambedkar its Prime Minister, it could have left the country unpartitioned. During the late '40s, Jinnah was in his last days. There was no other supreme leader in Pakistan. Plus, the people were not keen to leave India," said Arun, drawing inspiration from the 2000-released movie Ambedkar, starring Mammootty.

"It was all Jinnah's desire. He refused to be the PM of India because India was a poor country. In Pakistan, he could have created a new chapter," Rameeza responded.

"I used to admire Ambedkar. But he addressed Muslims as 'them' in his speeches. He also used to draw examples from the Muslim community. He told the SC/ST community to never be like them. He never gave us the respect that we deserved," said Rameeza.

"Well, is it so? That's new info for me. That reminds me—I have read some uncomfortable truths about Gandhi. It deals with his celibacy tests at the ashram. You should give it a read," Arun said.

"I used to hate Gandhi a lot. This was when I was a child. But as time went by, I was impressed by his adaptability to deal with the changes," said Rameeza, a history student.

"Well, I grew up considering Gandhi a hero. But as time went by, I read this literature. It sort of changed my perception. I still believe in Ahimsa and non-violence. But I cannot look at him as a Mahatma anymore," Arun reacted.

The discussion went on—they spoke about early marriage in Kerala, the last movie they watched on TV, and more. In other words, from the Muslim minority to Mahatma Gandhi, they shared thoughts on a lot of topics that Sunday afternoon. Like all good citizens, they didn't judge each other and were unafraid to express their views, not concerned about the outcome.

Perhaps that's what politicians should do too. Instead of calling each other out, they should find time to engage in constructive dialogues. The loss of time in the assembly presents a disappointing picture.

The lack of constructive dialogue has made the country miserable. Those who really 'talk' are the minority, and those who just 'react' are now the majority.