Alone but not alone (একা তবু একা নয় )

by Ibn Warraq

It is quite common to hear two arguments from Muslims and apologists of Islam, the language argument, and that old standby of crooked, lying politicians, “you have quoted out of context.”

Let us look at the language argument first. You are asked aggressively, ‘do you know Arabic?’ Then you are told triumphantly, ‘You have to read it in the original Arabic to understand it fully’. Christians, even Western freethinkers and atheists are usually reduced to sullen silence with these Muslim tactics; they indeed become rather coy and self-defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam; they feebly complain “who am I to criticise Islam? I do not know any Arabic.” And yet freethinkers are quite happy to criticise Christianity. How many Western freethinkers and atheists know Hebrew? How many even know what the language of Esra chapter 4 verses 6-8 is? Or in what language the New Testament was written?

Of course, Muslims are also free in their criticism of the Bible and Christianity without knowing a word of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek.

You do not need to know Arabic to criticise Islam or the Koran. Dr. Paul Kurtz, founder of the Center for Inquiry, and Prometheus Books, does not know Arabic but he did a great job on Islam in his book The Transcendental Temptation [1]. You only need a critical sense, critical thought and skepticism. Second, there are translations of the Koran by Muslims themselves, so Muslims cannot claim that there has been deliberate tampering of the text by infidel translators. Third, the majority of Muslims are not Arabs, and are not Arabic speakers. So a majority of Muslims also have to rely on translations. Finally, the language of the Koran is some form of Classical Arabic [2] which is substantially different from the spoken Arabic of today, so even Muslim Arabs have to rely on translations to understand their holy text. Arabic is a Semitic language related to Hebrew and Aramaic, and is no easier but also no more difficult to translate than any other language. Of course, there are all sorts of difficulties with the language of the Koran, but these difficulties have been recognized by Muslim scholars themselves. The Koran is indeed a rather opaque text but it is opaque to everyone. Even Muslim scholars do not understand a fifth of it.

Let us now turn to “you have quoted out of context”. This could mean two things: first, the historical context to which the various verses refer, or second, the textual context, the actual place in a particular chapter that the verse quoted comes from. The historical context argument is not available, in fact, to Muslims, since the Koran is the eternal word of God and true and valid for always. Thus for Muslims themselves there is no historical context. Of course, non-Muslims can legitimately and do avail themselves of the historical or cultural context to argue, for instance, that Islamic culture as a whole is anti-woman. Muslims did contradict themselves when they introduced the notion of abrogation, when a historically earlier verse was cancelled by a later one. This idea of abrogation was concocted to deal with the many contradictions in the Koran. What is more, it certainly backfires for those liberal Muslims who wish to give a moderate interpretation to the Koran since all the verses advocating tolerance (there are some but not many) have been abrogated by the later verses of the sword.

Out of Context Argument Used Against Muslims Themselves:

Now for the textual context. First, of course, this argument could be turned against Muslims themselves. When they produce a verse preaching tolerance, we could also say that they have quoted out of context, or more pertinently, first, that such a verse has been cancelled by a more belligerent and intolerant one, and second, that in the overall context of the Koran and the whole theological construct that we call Islam ( i.e. in the widest possible context), the tolerant verses are anomalous, or have no meaning, since Muslim theologians ignored them completely in developing Islamic Law, or that, finally, the verses do not say what they seem to say.

For instance, after September 11, 2001, many Muslims and apologists of Islam glibly came out with the following Koranic quote to show that Islam and the Koran disapproved of violence and killing: Sura V.32 : “Whoever killed a human being shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind”.

[For this reason was man created alone, to teach thee that whosever destroys a single soul of Israel [of Israel is absent in some texts], scripture imputes (guilt) to him as though he had Destroyed a Complete World; and whosever preserves a single soul of Israel, scripture ascribes (merit) to him as though he had Preserved a Complete World [since all mankind originated from one man]. – Babylonian Talmud, Mishnah Sanhedrin 37a] Unfortunately, these wonderful sounding words are being quoted out of context. Here is the entire quote: V.32 :

“That was why We laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being , except as a punishment for murder or other villainy in the land , shall be looked upon as though he had killed all mankind; and that whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as though he had saved all mankind.

“Our apostles brought them veritable proofs: yet it was not long before many of them committed great evils in the land.

“Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder shall be put to death or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the country.”

The supposedly noble sentiments are in fact a warning to Jews. Behave or else is the message. Far from abjuring violence, these verses aggressively point out that anyone opposing the Prophet will be killed, crucified, mutilated and banished!

Behind the textual context argument is thus the legitimate suspicion that by quoting only a short passage from the Koran I have somehow distorted its real meaning. I have, so the accusation goes, lifted the offending quote from the chapter in which it was embedded, and hence, somehow altered its true sense. What does “context” mean here? Do I have to quote the sentence before the offending passage, and the sentence after? Perhaps two sentences before and after? The whole chapter? Ultimately, of course, the entire Koran is the context.

The context, far from helping Muslims get out of difficulties only makes the barbaric principle apparent in the offending quote more obvious, as we have seen from Sura V.32 just cited. Let us take some other examples. Does the Koran say that men have the right to physically beat their wives or not? I say yes and quote the following verses to prove my point:

Sura IV.34 : “As for those [women] from whom you fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge [or beat] them.”

This translation comes from a Muslim. Have I somehow distorted the meaning of these lines? Let us have a wider textual context:

Sura IV.34 : “Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. God is high, supreme.”

If anything, the wider textual context makes things worse for those apologists of Islam who wish to minimize the mysogyny of the Koran. The oppression of women has divine sanction; women must obey God and their men, who have divine authorisation to scourge them. One Muslim translator, Yusuf Ali, clearly disturbed by this verse adds the word “lightly” in brackets after “beat” even though there is no “lightly” in the original Arabic. An objective reading of the entire Koran (that is the total context) makes grim reading as far as the position of women is concerned.

Finally, of course, many of the verses that we shall quote later advocating killing of unbelievers were taken by Muslims themselves to develop the theory of Jihad. Muslim scholars themselves referred to Sura VIII.67, VIII.39, and Sura II.216 to justify Holy War. Again the context makes it clear that it is the battle field that is being referred to, and not some absurd moral struggle; these early Muslims were warriors after booty, land and women not some existential heroes from the pages of Albert Camus or Jean-Paul Sartre.

Let us take another example: Sura IX.

Here I have tried to use where possible translations by Muslims or Arabophone scholars, to avoid the accusation of using infidel translations. However, many Muslim translators have a tendency to soften down the harshness of the original Arabic, particularly in translating the Arabic word jahada, e.g. Sura IX verse 73. Maulana Muhammad Ali, of the Ahmadiyyah sect, translates this passage as:

Sura IX.73 : “O Prophet, strive hard against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be firm against them. And their abode is hell, and evil is the destination.”

In a footnote of an apologetic nature, Muhammad Ali rules out the meaning “fighting” for jahada.

However the Iraqi scholar Dawood in his Penguin translation renders this passage as:

Sura IX.73 “ Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.”

How do we settle the meaning of this verse? The whole context of Sura IX. indeed makes it clear that “make war” in the literal and not some metaphorical sense is meant.

Let us take another verse from this Sura:

Sura IX.5 “Then, when the sacred months have passed away, kill the idolaters wherever you find them…” These words are usually cited to show what fate awaits idolaters.

Well, what of the context? The words immediately after these just quoted say, “and seize them, besiege them and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Ah, you might say, you have deliberately left out the words that come after those. Let us quote them then, “If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way. God is forgiving and merciful”. Surely these are words of tolerance, you plead. Hardly, they are saying, only if they become Muslims then they will be left in peace. In fact the whole sura which has 129 verses (approximately 14 pages in the Penguin translation by Dawood), in other words the whole context, is totally intolerant, and is indeed, the source of many totalitarian Islamic laws and principles, such as the concepts of Jihad and dhimmitude, the latter proclaiming the inferior status of Christians and Jews in an Islamic state. All our quotes from the Arabic sources in Part One also, of course, provide the historical context of raids, massacres, booty, and assassinations, which make it crystal clear that real bloody fighting is being advocated.

First the idolaters, how can you trust them? Most of them are evil doers (IX. 8); fight them (IX. 12, 14); they must not visit mosques (IX. 18); they are unclean (IX. 28); you may fight the idolaters even during the sacred months (IX. 36). “It is not for the Prophet, and those who believe, to pray for the forgiveness of idolaters even though they may be near of kin after it has become clear they are people of hell-fire” ( IX. 113). So much for forgiveness! Even your parents are to be shunned if they do not embrace Islam: IX.23 “O you who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you takes them for friends, such are wrong-doers.” In other words if you are friendly with your parents who are not Muslims you are being immoral.

The theory of Jihad is derived from verses 5 and 6 already quoted but also from the following verses:

IX. 38-39: Believers, why is it that when it is said to you: ‘March in the cause of God’, you linger slothfully in the land? Are you content with this life in preference to the life to come? Few indeed are the blessings of this life, compared to those of the life to come.

If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men.

41: Whether unarmed or well-equipped, march on and fight for the cause of God, with your wealth and with your persons.

73: Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal harshly with them.

The word that I have translated as fight is jahid. Some translators translate it as go forth or strive. Dawood translates it as fight, as does Penrice in his Dictionary and Glossary of the Koran, where it is defined as: To strive, contend with, fight –especially against the enemies of Islam. While Hans Wehr in his celebrated Arabic dictionary translates it as “endeavour, strive; to fight; to wage holy war against the infidels”.[3]

As for the intolerance against Jews and Christians, and their inferior status as dhimmis we have IX verses 29 –35:

“Fight against such of those to whom the Scriptures were given as believe neither in God nor the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His apostle have forbidden, and do not embrace the true faith, until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued.

“ The Jews say Ezra is the son of God, while the Christians say the Messiah is the son of God. Such are their assertions, by which they imitate the infidels of old. God confound them! How perverse they are!

“They make of their clerics and their monks, and of the Messiah, the son of Mary, Lords besides God; though they were ordered to serve one God only. There is no god but Him. Exalted be He above those whom they deify besides Him!….

“It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters may dislike it

“O you who believe! Lo! many of the Jewish rabbis and the Christian monks devour the wealth of mankind wantonly and debar men from the way of Allah; They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings of painful doom …”

The moral of all the above is clear: Islam is the only true religion, Jews and Christians are devious, and money-grubbing, who are not to be trusted, and even have to pay a tax in the most humiliating way. I do not think I need quote any more from Sura IX, although it goes on in this vein verse after verse.

[1] P.Kurtz , The Transcendental Temptation , Prometheus Books , Amherst ,1986

[2] There seems to be some controversy as to what the language of the Koran really is , see my introduction to What the Koran Really Says ., Prometheus Books , Amherst , 2002.

[3] Hans Wehr , A Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic , Lebanon , Reprinted , 1980 , p.142

Sunday, 20 September 2015 03:36 Mirza Ghalib

Daughters of Prophet Muhammad

Muhammad had over a dozen wives and many sex-slaves in his harem. Only two of those women were supposedly fertile. One was the wealthy old lady Khadija, his first wife, whom 25-year-old Muhammad married when she was 40. The second fertile woman was the Egyptian Coptic slave-girl Mariyah, sent from the harem of the Egyptian king after Muhammad sent him a threatening missive, demanding that Muhammad be accepted as the king and prophet of God. Soon after arriving in Muhammad's harem, Mariyah gave birth to a son, who died after a few months. Islamic scholars claim that all the wives of the prophet, mostly in their 20s or pre-20s, were barren and could not bore him any children. According to Muhammad's biographical scriptures – the hadith and Sira – Muhammad supposedly had four daughters, all of them from Khadija. But hadith scriptures give a high level of coverage of his very loving daughter Fatima, while saying very little about the other three daughters—namely Zainab, Ruqaiyyah and Umm Kulthum. In Islam, Muhammad is deemed to be the perfect human being and the ideal father, leader and prophet. The Quran also identifies him as “excellent example of human character” for Muslims to follow until the end of the world. We can, therefore, assume that the relationship between Muhammad and Fatima was the ideal father-daughter relationship that all Muslims must try their best to emulate for all eternity. Let us explore the supposedly ideal father-daughter relationship between Muhammad and Fatima in this essay.

FAMILY OF FATIMA IS MY FAMILY – MUHAMMAD

The four daughters of Muhammad had grown up to be given in marriage and lived with their husbands. Out of all these families, Muhammad considered the family of Fatima as special and declared that it is the only family that he belonged to. He called Fatima's family ‘Ahlal Baith’, which mean the first royal family. He didn't give this privilege to his other daughters or anyone of his wives. “…Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) called 'Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain and said: O Allah, they are my family”. (Sahih Muslim 31:5915)

MUHAMMAD WRAPPED FATIMA AND HER FAMILY INSIDE HIS OWN GARMENT

'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) went out one morning wearing a striped cloak of the black camel's hair that there came Hasan b. 'Ali. He wrapped him under it, then came Husain and he wrapped him under it along with the other one (Hasan). Then came Fatima and he took her under it, then came 'Ali and he also took him under it and then said: Allah only desires to take away any uncleanliness from you, O people of the household, and purify you (thorough purifying) (Sahih Muslim 31:5955) Strange behavior of this father (Muhammad) – taking his youthful married daughter under his own garment.

MUHAMMAD SAT BETWEEN FATHIMA AND ALI ON THEIR BED AT MIDNIGHT

Narrated 'Ali: Fatima complained of the suffering caused to her by the hand mill. Some Captives were brought to the Prophet, she came to him but did not find him at home 'Aisha was present there to whom she told (of her desire for a servant). When the Prophet came, Aisha informed him about Fatima's visit. Ali added "So the Prophet came to us, while we had gone to our bed I wanted to get up but the Prophet said, "Remain at your place". Then he sat down between us till I found the coolness of his feet on my chest. Then he said, "Shall I teach you a thing which is better than what you have asked me? When you go to bed, say, 'Allahu-Akbar' thirty-four times, and 'Subhan Allah thirty-three times, and 'Alhamdu-lillah thirty-three times for that is better for you both than a servant." (Sahih Al-Bukhari 4:53:344, 5:57:55, 7:64:274, 8:75:330) As said earlier, Muhammad is regarded in Islamic sources as Al-Insan Al-Kamel (the perfect human being) and Uswa al-Hasna (man with exemplary character). So he must be the exemplary father personality to his daughter Fatima. And strangely, here he comes into the bedroom of his daughter and son-in-law at the dead of night and sits in-between them. Remember that in those days, there was no electricity and Muhammad advised his followers to put off lamps before sleeping. So, Muhammad was sitting in-between his daughter and son-in-law in complete darkness. Strange way and time to interact with one's daughter. We may bear in mind that Muhammad had disowned his adopted son Zaid of 30 years, so that he could marry Zaid's stunningly beautiful wife, Zainab. In return, Muhammad gave his old black slave woman Umm Ayman (Barakha), his father Abdullah's sex-slave, to Zaid.

MUHAMMAD FREQUENTLY ENTERED FATIMA’S HOUSE AT MIDNIGHT

This incident of Muhammad's entering Fatima’s house at midnight to discuss some useless matter was not a rare or one-off incident. Many hadiths report occasions of Muhammad entering Fatima’s house quite often at the dead of night: Narrated 'Ali: That one night Allah's Apostle came to him and Fatima and said, "Don't you (both offer the (Tahajjud) (Mid-night) prayer?" Ali said, 'When Allah wishes us to get up, we get up." The Prophet then recited: 'But man is more quarrelsome than anything.' (Sahih Al-Bukhari 2:21:227,6:60:248; Sahih Muslim 4:1701) Just wonder: Why the prophet had to enter Fatima's bedroom at the dead of night just to ask such silly questions.

HASSAN RESEMBLED GRANDFATHER MUHAMMAD, NOT FATHER ALI!

Narrated 'Uqba bin Al-Harith: I saw Abu Bakr carrying Al-Hasan and saying, "Let my father be sacrificed for you; you resemble the Prophet and not Ali," while Ali was laughing at this. (Sahih Al-Bukhari 5:57:93) Narrated Isma'il bin Abi Khalid: I heard Abii Juhaifa saying, "I saw the Prophet, and Al-Hasan bin 'Ali resembled him…." (Sahih Al-Bukhari 4:56:744) Grandchildren get roughly one-fourth of their genes from the grandfathers and may have some resemblance to their grandfathers. But they are supposed to have greater resemblance to the father from whom they get roughly half their genes. But it is very strange that Hassan – the first son of Ali and Fatima – resembled grandfather Muhammad, and had no resemblance of father Ali.

HUSAIN ALSO RESEMBLED MUHAMMAD

It may just be mere coincidence that Fatima’s first son Hassan resembled his grandfather Muhammad and had no resemblance of his father Ali. But when Fatima's second son Husain also had resemblance of Muhammad even more, it certainly sounds very fishy: Narrated Muhammad: Anas bin Malik said, "The head of Al-Husain was brought to 'Ubaidullah bin Ziyad and was put in a tray, and then Ibn Ziyad started playing with a stick at the nose and mouth of Al-Husain's head and saying something about his handsome features." Anas then said (to him), "Al-Husain resembled the Prophet more than the others did." (Sahih Al-Bukhari 5:57:91)

ALI – COUSIN OF FATIMA OR UNCLE?

Narrated Sahl bin Sa'd: Allah's Apostle went to Fatima's house but did not find 'Ali there. So he asked, "Where is your cousin?" She replied, "There was something between us and he got angry with me and went out….” (Sahih Al-Bukhari 1:8:432, 5:57:53, 8:74:297) Mainstream Islamic narratives tell that Muhammad was the son of Abdullah, and his son-in-law Ali was the son of Abdullah's brother Abu Talib. So, Muhammad and Ali were first cousins of each other and Ali was Fatima's uncle. But in the above hadith, Muhammad calls Ali to be Fatima's cousin. How is that possible? It is only possible if Muhammad was the son of his supposed grandfather. It may be mentioned that after Muhammad's supposed father Abdullah died, his mother Amina was living in his grandfather Abdul Muttalib's house. Only after for 4 years of Abdullah's death, Amina gave birth to Muhammad.

Fatima screens Muhammad as he takes bath

Bukhari 8:73:179 Narrated Um Hani: (the daughter of Abu Talib) I visited Allah's Apostle in the year of the Conquest of Mecca and found him taking a bath, and his daughter, Fatima was screening him. When I greeted him, he said, "Who is it?" I replied, "I am Um Hani, the daughter of Abu Talib." He said, "Welcome, O Um Hani!" When the Prophet had finished his bath, he stood up and offered eight Rakat of prayer while he was wrapped in a single garment. When he had finished his prayer, I said, "O Allah's Apostle! My maternal brother assumes (or claims) that he will murder some man whom I have given shelter, i.e., so-and-so bin Hubaira." Allah's Apostle said, "O Um Hani! We shelter him whom you have sheltered." Um Hani added, "That happened in the forenoon." Another feather in the cap of excellent father-daughter relationship between prophet Muhammad and Fatima. Muhammad needed screening while taking bath means that he was undressed. Why his youthful daughter would have to do the job of screening him when he had thousands of male followers around him.

SEXUAL PROMISCUITY AND QUARREL OVER FATHERHOOD IN EARLY ISLAMIC PERIOD

Narrated Zayd ibn Arqam: I was sitting with the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him). A man came from the Yemen, and said: Three men from the people of the Yemen came to Ali, quarreling about a child, asking him to give a decision. They had had sexual intercourse with a woman during a single state of purity. He said to two of them: Give this child to this man (the third person) with pleasure. But they (refused and) cried loudly. Again he said to two of them: Give the child to the man (the third person) willingly. But they (refused and) cried loudly. He then said: You are quarrelsome partners. I shall cast lots among you; he who receives the lot, will acquire the child, and he shall pay two-thirds of the blood-money to both his companions. He then cast lots among them, and gave the child to the one who received the lot. The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) laughed so much that his canine or molar teeth appeared. (Abu Dawud 12:2262) This hadith give idea about the sexual promiscuity in the Arab society during the prophethood and rule of Muhammad. Prophet Muhammad was happy to resolve the dispute and even made fun of it. There are multiple such hadiths in the hadith. Muhammad's own sexual character, including his maintaining a harem of more than a dozen wives and many sex-slaves plus marrying his own daughter-in-law, points to the fact that Muhammad was just a product of the same sexual order of the then Arab society, if not a worse one. Before we conclude this finest father-daughter relationship between Muhammad and Fatima, let us see how Prophet Muhammad used to give captured girls from his share of war-booty to Fatima's husband to have sex with: The apostle gave Ali a girl called Rayta; and he gave Uthman a girl called Zaynab; and he gave Umar a girl whom Umar gave to his son Abdullah. (Ibn Ishaq, p. 878)

Kuldip Nayar was Lal Bahadur Shastri's press advisor from 1960 to 1964 and travelled with him extensively. He provides an insight into the former prime minister's life.

Shastri and the Congress

Shastri has been forgotten by the nation. He has been pushed into the background. I have no doubt that there was a Congress conspiracy to underplay Shastri after his death. The Congress is the party that should have put him to the fore but I remember visiting a Congress meeting where Shastri's portrait was not even displayed with respect. He simply didn't fit in. Mrs Gandhi was strongly against the Congress old guard. When he died there was a strong resistance against his cremation in the area where Gandhi and Nehru had been laid to rest. Most Congressmen wanted his body taken to Allahabad. When Mrs Lalita Shastri said she would go public only then did the Congressmen relent. They even protested against inscribing the slogan -- Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan on his samadhi. Then again, only when Mrs Shastri threatened to go on a hunger strike was it was allowed. After leaving the Press Information Bureau I became a reporter. Wherever I went to meet Congress leaders, I was labelled as 'Shastri ka aadmi' [Shastri's man]. Now, a committee has been set up by the Congress-led government to celebrate his birth centenary but it seems like an afterthought. I think after the death of Shastri, the Congress did not know where to fit him. When Mrs Gandhi succeeded him, the Congress didn't know where to put his legacy in the scheme of things then. Shastri stands for austerity. Shastri stands for simplicity and consensus. Shastri represents an ideology that was right of Centre but not left of Centre. After all, he is the man who said we need the five-year plan but let us have a one year holiday from plan. I remember vividly a small incident that brought out the stark difference between the two (Shastri and Indira Gandhi) leaders. During Shastri's tenure his home in Janpath was upgraded quite a bit to suit the status of a PM. After his death, while searching for a suitable home Mrs Gandhi went to see Shastri's home. She entered the home, had a round inside and said, "middle class!"

The making of Shastri

Shastri was selected by veteran Congress leaders K Kamaraj, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and S Nijalingappa to lead the nation. Moments after Nehru's death I asked him who should become PM, he said it should be the unanimous decision of the Congress. He gave two names in order. First, Jayaprakash Narayan and second, Indira Gandhi. He told me he wanted a unanimous decision over the selection. "But if there is a contest (which Morarji Desai contemplated) then I can defeat Morarji Desai but not Indira Gandhi," he told me. Probably he was right. However, the question didn't arise because Kamaraj was asked to talk to members informally. Shastri was made PM but Morarjibhai never accepted the decision. After Shastri became PM he had to face the war with Pakistan. When the Chamb border was attacked Shastri was asked to take a tough decision whether to cross the international border. The army chief said it would be difficult to hold on for long at Chamb. Shastri gave the order saying -- before they can capture Chamb you should capture Lahore. After the war was over, I asked Indira Gandhi if Nehru would have allowed the crossing of the international border. Mrs Gandhi said, 'Whatever the generals would have advised him he would have followed." But I wonder.

A slight man made of steel

After the war, Shastri's name was all over. Before the war many people laughed at him for his softness but not after the war. He came out as a tough hero. His toughness was evident at Tashkent. When Russian Prime Minister Alexei Kosygin (left: Shastri with Kosygin and Indian's then external affairs minister Swaran Singh) wanted Shastri to sign the agreement for peace with General Ayub Khan of Pakistan after the 1965 war, Shastri insisted on adding the assurance, "never again will weapons be used to sort out problems between India and Pakistan." Ayub was maintaining a vague stance by quoting UN resolutions. "Then you will have to find another PM," said Shastri during the arguments. In the final agreement General Ayub Khan had not mentioned those words but Shastri continued to press for it. Ayub finally wrote it at the very last moment. General Ayub's handwritten assurance is still preserved in the Indian archives. Shastri was a slight person but with a strong mind.

Shastri can't be revived

If the Congress wants to celebrate Shastri, it will have to re-emphasis the honesty of Shastri. He stood for the small men of India. But the Congress has changed completely. Since Mrs Gandhi said that corruption is a world phenomenon, Congressmen are not losing sleep over it. Neither can I imagine Shastri imposing the Emergency. All those Congressmen seen active during the Emergency are part of this government. Ambika Soni is a confidante of Sonia Gandhi, Pranab Mukherjee, Arjun Singh, Kamal Nath all were part of the establishment then. How can these leaders bring in the values of Shastri? The Nehru-Gandhi dynasty culture has also played a role in minimising Shastri's legacy. When Shastri was made a minister without portfolio in the Nehru's Cabinet, he was uncomfortable. Once in a huff he told me, "I shall quit and retire to Allahabad." While cajoling him not to entertain an such idea I said, "Nehru has you in his mind." Shastri said, "Unke dimag main to unki putri hai. (He has his daughter in his mind as successor.)" As soon as Shastri died the dynasty culture returned to the Congress. Shastri's message of life was that if he could become PM anybody could because he was a common man. As the Bible says the meekest shall inherit the earth, he proved it. In 1942 (during the Quit India Movement), when he was in a jail, his daughter was ill and he was released on parole. But he could not save her life because doctors had recommended costly drugs. Shastri never made money. In 1963, on the day when he was dropped under the Kamaraj plan I went to meet him. He was sitting in his home without a light. "Why are you sitting in the dark?" I asked. He said, "From today all expenses will be borne by me." He told me as a MP and minister he didn't earn enough to save for his rainy day. On that evening, I told him to turn a columnist to earn some money. So he wrote a column on Lala Lajpat Rai. That was the first syndicated column in India. I syndicated it to four newspapers and collected Rs 500 from each. Quite a hefty sum! The second column was on Nehru but before he could write more he was recalled to the Cabinet. I don't see the revival of the values Shastri stood for. A day before his first press conference after becoming PM I asked him what will be your message tomorrow? He said: "I'll tell them that during my tenure there will not be any increase in food price and as PM of India I would ask members of the Planning Commission to have one more column in their charts to show me how many jobs will be created after spending thousands of crores of rupees." He was a man concerned about the common man of India. Can these values return to this country? I don't think so.

As told to Senior Editor Sheela Bhatt

Seven miles from Kashi in Uttar Pradesh is Mughalsarai. A hundred years ago, Lal Bahadur, India's second prime minister, was born there on October 2, 1904, the same day as India's greatest statesman Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, born 35 years before Shastriji. Though his parents Sharada Prasad and Ramdulari Devi were Srivastavas, Shastri dropped his caste identity in his early years. In 1921, inspired by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gandhi, he cut short his studies to join India's freedom movement. Later he joined the Kashi Vidyapeeth and earned the epithet 'Shastri' by obtaining a degree on philosophy. He won the hearts of Indians when he showed exemplary courage in taking quick decisions as prime minister June 1964 to January 1966) during the India-Pakistan war in 1965. His leadership in war was an answer to that most often asked question at that time: 'After Nehru, who?' But his untimely death on January 10, 1966 in Tashkent, in suspicious circumstances, deprived him the chance for history to sit in judgement. In a haphazardly taken decision, the central government has formed a committee to celebrate Shastri's life and work in the year of his centenary. In an ongoing series rediff.com salutes the 'gentle giant' who led India through the critical years after succeeding Nehru. Has the nation forgotten Shastri? Is Shastri, who epitomised honesty and sincerity in public life, relevant today? Anil Shastri, one of the late prime minister's six children and member of the Congress party, recounts memories of his father in a conversation with Senior Editor Sheela Bhatt.

On the Congress treatment of Shastri

I don't think India has forgotten Lal Bahadur Shastri. Whatever he did is remembered even today. I must say since Sonia Gandhi has taken charge Shastriji's portraits are displayed in all the annual sessions of the party. Many people have observed that there was a conspiracy to underplay Shastri's legacy within the Congress. This serious charge is untrue for the simple reason that due to his untimely death his contribution to the nation was confined to those 18 to 19 months when he was PM. Nehru ruled the country for 17 years, Indira Gandhi for 16 years and Rajiv Gandhi for 5 years. Obviously the Nehru-Gandhi contribution is unparalleled because nobody got this opportunity. And remember Shastriji considered him as a protégé of Pandit Nehru. He was never outside the sphere of the Nehru ideology which is the Congress ideology. Our nation is going to celebrate his birth centenary throughout the year. The committee is formed under the chairmanship of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Even in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, celebrations have been organised on a big scale. E Ahmed, minister of state for external affairs, was in Tashkent to participate in the celebrations. Shastriji who represented a certain value system is more relevant today than before because a majority of us today have no value systems. I feel difficult to contest elections. I feel a little out of place but for my lineage I have survived in politics.

His father

I still miss him although I was just 16 years old when he died. If he would have lived 10 more years he would have done much more for the country. He was down to earth. A real son of the soil. His grounding was from the grassroots level. He was a practical man too. He strongly believed the laws of the land should be changed because the British formed them to rule over India. He did make an attempt by constituting the administrative reforms commission and made Morarji Desai its chairman. But after he died the idea was shelved. The most cherished memory I have is the verses of Guru Nanak, which were displayed on his table. As Nehru kept Robert Frost's lines -- 'Miles to go before I sleep', on his desk, my father kept Nanak's quotes in Gurmukhi. When translated into English they mean -- 'O Nanak! Be tiny like the grass, for other plants will whither away, but grass will remain ever green.' When under the PL 480 programme, America was going to send inferior quality of wheat to India, he opposed it. He asked the nation to go hungry once a day than accept poor quality food from US. Before making this announcement he asked my mother not to cook evening meals. He himself followed what he recommended.

The 1965 war with Pakistan

He appeared very modest but was a man of steel. He had the ability to take quick decisions. It was demonstrated on August 31, 1965. On that day he came home for an early dinner. One of his secretaries told him that the three chiefs of the defence services had come to see him. He immediately left for his office next door at 10, Janpath. The three chiefs visited him to inform him that the Pakistan army had crossed the international border with 100 battle tanks in the Chamb sector of Jammu. They told him that in a short span of time the Pakistan army would cut off Kashmir from the rest of India. Without losing time he asked for the opening of a new front including Lahore. Retaliate with full force, he said. What I remember is that the historic meeting lasted less than five minutes. Arjan Singh, the then chief of the air force was present. He is the only surviving member from that meeting. He told them, "Be prepared for war." He called Defence Minister Y B Chavan and informed him of the decision. He responded positively and expressed his support. He didn't wait for international reactions. The next day, newspapers reported that the Indian army was marching towards Lahore. It was a big morale booster for the country. During those tense days, in his address to the nation from Red Fort on Independence day, he said: "Hathiyaron ka jawab hathiyaron se denge. (Force will be met with force.) Hamara desh rahega to hamara tiranga rahega. (Our flag will survive only if our country does)"

On Shastri and the Nehru-Gandhi family

Pandit Nehru was very found of him. Shastriji was around 15 years younger but he trusted him fully. In 1956, when a train accident killed 144 passengers near Ariyalur in Tamil Nadu, Shastriji resigned. Panditji refused to accept the resignation but he prevailed upon Panditji to accept it. On the following day in Parliament, Nehru said no one could wish for a better comrade than Lal Bahadur. A man of the highest integrity and devoted to ideas is called Lal Bahadur, said Nehru. Once he was sent to Kashmir by Nehru to help resolve the theft in the Hazaratbal shrine. Nehru asked him whether he had enough woollens for the trip. "Are you aware Kashmir must be having snowfall at this time?" asked Nehru. Shastri showed him the jacket he was wearing and Nehru immediately gave his own mink overcoat. My father was short in stature so he told Nehru the coat was quite long. But Nehru said woollen overcoats were always longer. That no one would know it was a borrowed one. On his return from Kashmir when father went to him to return the overcoat, Nehru asked him to keep it. The next day newspapers reported: Nehru's Mantle Falls on Shastri. Shastriji and Indiraji also enjoyed a close relationship. She had the highest personal regard for him. After Nehru's death in 1964, the Congress chose him as a consensus candidate. He did make an attempt to persuade Indira Gandhi to take over as prime minister. He went to see her and asked her to become prime minister. She put her foot down and said no. "You become PM and I'll totally support you," she said. When he was PM he would drop by at 1, Safdarjung Road (Indira Gandhi's home) without intimation just to chat with her.