Read on Twitter
in conversations surrounding islamophobia in india, those that refute its presence (the hindu right specifically) love to project their acceptance of a.p.j abdul kalam as a sign of their, and by extension, india& #39;s secular credentials. it& #39;s a proposition that needs to be debunked.
kalam, like every other president of india, was only the nominal head of the state; it& #39;s a defining feature of the parliamentary system of governance. true power in such a system is vested in the prime minister and his/her union cabinet.
to add to that, the president of india is not elected by the masses. therefore, kalam& #39;s elevation to the post cannot be taken as a sign of the electorate being secular. it& #39;s a conclusion you can draw if we were to have a muslim prime minister; we haven& #39;t had one in seven decades.
for islamophobes in india, kalam is the archetype of the “ideal and acceptable” muslim. he fits perfectly into their desired pigeonholed framework: a success story from humble origins, a quiet, self-effacing personality and most importantly, not being a devout adherent of islam.
in terms of success, personality and religiosity, every muslim is not kalam. the question is, will you be as accepting of them as well? a few examples: (a) muslim activists and intellectuals who criticize majoritarian bigotry and unapologetically assert their religious identity.
(b) the ordinary pheriwala who derides the bjp and hindutva and took part in an anti-CAA/NRC protest (c) the rebellious and brave kashmiri who protests against the indian state& #39;s gross violations. why is it that these folks don& #39;t get even a minuscule fraction of that acceptance?
