This is in response to G Rajashekara’s article published in these columns about ‘Pattabhi becoming a nuisance to the Mangalore University’.
It has become a part of ABVP’s extra-curricular activity for to create unrest at the University College whenever Pattabhi spoke up for equal justice, constitutional rights and raised his voice against the anomalies in the justice dispensation system.
Unfortunately, the university has also become a laughing stock by issuing show cause notices one after the other to Pattabhi, when the authorities should have been dealing sternly with those creating trouble on the campus. The actions of the university also smacks of administrative irresponsibility. The other lecturers of the college appear to be living in their own world thinking about the arrears they would be entitled to under the new salary scale.
There is hardly any dispute about the issues raised by Pattabhi at the PFI meeting. But, what does he want to convey by attending a meeting convened by PFI, an outfit criticized for its fundamentalist worldview. Is it sufficient if he just speaks against only Hindu militancy? If this organization is genuinely secular and democratic, would they need Pattabhi to make a speech and appeal the government to take stern action against all the terrorist organizations?
It is the responsibility of the justice and law system to punish those who are hell-bent on damaging the lives and property of the people and thereby disturb peace in the society without any fear or favour. The perpetrators of the crime may be Purohith, Pragya Singh or Kasab, but it is the duty of every citizen to demand that they be punished according to law.
Pattabhi has been known for his moral values, and his commitment to secularism and to his own conscience, remains unquestionable. He does not mince words when it comes to expressing his views from any platform. However, PFI has been found wanting when it came to issues like exploitation of Muslim women. The outfit would not show the same amount of enthusiasm on such issues as it does when it comes to fighting Hindu terror.
Why does Pattabhi and unflinching secularists like him not ask Muslim men about their attitude toward women. Why does he not ask them to free women from clutches of orthodoxy. May be this was the predicament even faced by Gandhi and Bhose. Even they thought, “yeah essentially right, but wrong in the overall context and dangerous in the historical context.”
Gandhi, Karanth, Kuvempu, Tejaswi opposed extremism and obscurantism without bothering as to which religion the perpetrators belonged to. They would not condone any behavior which would be tantamount to criticizing the regressive outfits of one religion and keeping quiet about the fundamentalism of the other group. In fact, such behavior can only be termed as being politically correct.
If Pattabhi does not speak against the fundamentalism within Islam, he will only end up becoming the talking puppet in the hands of the magician.
Finally, whether PFI people would have dared to invite Pattabhi if they had the slightest fear that the English lecturer, being the true secular that he is, would condemn the male-dominated fundamentalist attitudes of all religions in equal terms?
Also read:
* Is Pattabhi a ‘kirikiri’ for University College?
Comments
Add new comment