Arab News Editorial: Sena’s bigotry

Editorial: Sena's bigotry

INDIA'S genius and strength lie in its rich diversity. This country of 1.2 billion people with 22 official languages is a vibrant melting pot of cultures, united in the pride of being Indian. This most obviously manifests itself on the cricket pitch but it can be seen in every major urban area, with the knowledge that India, after years of stagnation, now has one of the world's fastest growing economies. In the light of its expanding list of achievements, the activities of India's minority of bigots is thrown into sharp relief. The behavior of the Hindu Shiv Sena thugs in the country's commercial capital Mumbai is a particularly deplorable example of blind prejudice that is being exploited by a handful of politicians in a vain attempt to ride to power. The latest manifestation of this objectionable group's bigotry has come with violent protests at the Mumbai screenings of a new Bollywood film, "My Name Is Khan". The reason for the riots could not be more pathetic. The film's star, Shah Rukh Khan, one of the leading actors in India's thriving film industry, had commented that it was a pity no Pakistani cricketers had been chosen to play in the Indian Premier League. This view is shared by many other Indians who regret that apparently for political reasons, though security seems also to have been an issue, talented players from India's equally cricket-mad neighbor have not been selected for this highly prestigious competition. The response of Shiv Sena has been disgusting. Using intimidation, it first endeavored to stop cinema managements from showing the film. When this failed and 21,000 police were deployed to protect some 60 theaters screening "My Name Is Khan", Shiv Sena mobilized hundreds of bully boys who attempted to storm police lines and enter the cinemas. This happened despite the pre-emptive arrest of up to 1,000 activists. The bigots are demanding that Khan apologize for and retract his perfectly innocuous remark. Khan has indeed expressed regret publicly that something he said should have caused such a furious reaction. He protested that he was only an actor whose job was to entertain, not upset. However, he has quite rightly refused to eat his words. He might indeed have added that it is almost certain that Shiv Sena's perverted views were also actuated by the fact that he is himself a Muslim. He could have said that his religion makes him no less an Indian than someone from any other cultural background, including even the purblind supporters of Shiv Sena. There is an irony to this that is almost certainly lost on these Hindu thugs. "My Name Is Khan" is a groundbreaking film that probably signals a new wave in Bollywood for more serious, thoughtful movies. For years filmmakers have churned out low budget, saccharine musical romps, which made up for what they lacked in sophisticated plot and dialogue with astonishing energy. Indians should, therefore, be excited and proud of this new departure. But not Shiv Sena, who cannot think straight above the strident row of their protests. Politics of elderly care EXCERPTS from an editorial in The Independent on Friday: An attempt to forge a cross-party consensus on care for elderly people in England disintegrated this week. A government Green Paper on the subject last year floated various ideas for extending care. And one of the options for paying for such an extension was a compulsory levy on estates after death. This week the Conservatives launched an attack on Labour's "death tax" in a new poster campaign. Labour and the Liberal Democrats accused the Tories of breaking the consensus. But the Conservatives deny there was never an agreement — and claim a report that Labour was preparing to back the compulsory levy in its manifesto justified their intervention. Leaving aside the finger pointing, it is interesting that there were cross-party talks on this subject in the first place. All three parties clearly sensed they were vulnerable on social care. The present means-tested care system is deeply unpopular, especially the requirement for some elderly people to sell their homes to pay for care. And local councils — controlled by all three parties — have been tightening the qualification threshold. Yet politics as usual has reasserted itself. The Conservatives' suggested alternative are incentives for voluntary insurance in the form of a one-off, up-front, payment of about 8,000 pounds sterling at age 65. They suggest this would cover individuals if they need residential care later on in life. But the cost projections for this are dubious. And they do not say what would happen to the uninsured. There is no reason why care for elderly people should be exempt from the usual partisan battles. After all, with our society rapidly aging, this is one of the most important issues facing this country. The overall cost of elderly care is projected to double in the next two decades. Dealing with this challenge equitably is surely the very essence of politics. Yet it is more than a decade since a Royal Commission, headed by Sir Stewart Sutherland, laid out the urgent need for decisive political leadership on long-term social care for elderly people.