Emraan Hashmi claims religious profiling
New Delhi: Accusing a Mumbai housing society of religious profiling and discrimination, actor Emraan Hashmi on Friday said that he never though he would have to give a “character certificate” to buy a house.
Hashmi tried buying an apartment in Mumbai’s posh Pali Hill locality but the actor believes the housing society is discriminating against him because he is a Muslim. He has filed a complaint with the State Minorities’ Commission, demanding action against the housing society’s members.
“It is a very tricky situation. Nobody will tell you on your face that you will not be given a flat because you are Muslim. They did not tell me openly but it was very evident,” Hashmi said.
“It is a basic issue of me being Muslim. If as a celebrity I am facing such problem one can easily understand the problem faced by the common man,” he added.
Addressing a press conference in Mumbai along with filmmaker Mahesh Bhatt, Hashmi said, “I never thought that I had to get a character certificate. I want to know why I am being not being given a NOC (no objection certificate).”
Hashmi explained how the society members were not forthcoming with his request to buy an apartment. “They delayed the NOC for five days and eventually I got to know that they don’t want me to get a membership in that society,” he said.
“There are lots of other places like Bandra where brokers say they don’t approach societies because of biases,” he added.
The actor also alleged that to dodge the issue now many are saying that “since I am a serial kisser in the movies so I will be a bad influence to the children around me.”
To which Mahesh Bhatt said, “In that building many Bollywood actors live. Some have done negative roles then how come they have been allowed to stay there?”
Meanwhile, Maharashtra Minorities Commission Vice-Chairman Abraham Mathai said the Commission is sending a notice to the housing society.
“Emraan Hashmi has complained that the building society is refusing to give him NOC to complete the transaction of the deal to buy the flat. He has given Rs 1 lakh as token money. Building society refuses to give NOC because he is a Muslim. He has made a written complaint. We are sending a notice to the society chairman. We will ask them to explain their stand. No such complaint filed ever,” Mathai said.
July 31, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Hashmi needs to stop crying and look at the real problem, which is that no sharif man with bahu, betiyan wants a serial kisser like Hashmi in their area
July 31, 2009 at 5:24 PM
LOL!!! You’ve hit the nail on the head!
August 2, 2009 at 8:40 AM
LOL. Sometimes I wish India had an SNL type of show. This would make for such an awesome skit.
July 31, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Ha!
July 31, 2009 at 7:48 PM
Saif Ali Khan also claimed religious discrimination about buying a property some time ago. I didn’t find that one convincing, either, though now I can’t recall all the details.
Here is Salman Khan’s comment on the issue, which I find surprising for the fact that he commented at all (though in response to a question): http://www.ptinews.com/news/206192_Salman-disagrees-with-Hashmi-over-flatownership-issue
August 1, 2009 at 9:55 PM
After Salman, Shah Rukh slams Emraan for ‘flat’ fiasco
I am thinking of common Muslim who don’t have much options. He is celebrity and has money, he can find other locations to his taste. He may have a valid case but I don’t think it requires the attention he is getting. I think discrimination happens quite often but some are reported more frequently and given prominence. A Tamilian facing adversity in North or Noth Indian facing problem in Mumbai..SC/ST…. The list is endless.
August 1, 2009 at 11:39 PM
The thing is that in Mumbai housing societies discriminate against all kinds of groups, which, though it strange to me, is apparently accepted by everyone. I have been reading comments at other sites that some places discriminate against Gujaratis, others against Tamilians or all South Indians, some against non-vegetarians, etc. On top of all that, many people are reluctant to have actors residing near them as they consider them a disruptive influence, merely by being actors. This is not necessarily a moral judgement, but can be something as simple as, they don’t want the hassle of fans and press crowding around all the time, for example. Even some of Salman’s neighbors complained to his father a few years ago that his fans, who congregate regularly outside his building, were blocking the walking path along the beach. Since he was already living there before he became a film star, I guess they couldn’t kick him out, but if they didn’t want to let him in afterwards, it would be understandable.
August 2, 2009 at 12:33 AM
I lived in Manhattan for a number of years and buying (or renting) there is just as difficult. Condo and Coop boards discriminate against everyone – no matter the color, religion, profession, etc. Some hate celebrities because they bring the paparrazi to their buildings. Other hate Wall Street folks or lawyers based on their reputation for causing problems – arrogance, tempermental, quick to threaten legal actions, etc.
When I got my condo, I had to provide the most ridiculous amount of documentation and recommendations for a background check. You would think I was moving into the White House. lol
So there could be any number of reasons why he was rejected.
August 2, 2009 at 8:39 AM
This is true.. and while religion is probably not a big factor in all of this racial codes do exist.. More commonly though it’s celebrity driven where people just want extra attention because of a high profile personality.
August 2, 2009 at 11:40 AM
Re: “The thing is that in Mumbai housing societies discriminate against all kinds of groups, which, though it strange to me, is apparently accepted by everyone.”
Well, it’s clearly not accepted by Hashmi. It’s accepted by most because they have no other options, but why should someone accept it just because it’s been done for a long time? Certainly Muslims aren’t the only ones “excluded” (Maharashtrians find it very difficult as well, being meat-eaters, to get accomodation in Gujarati areas), but that doesn’t mean they aren’t among those excluded in this or that situation. So nothing wrong if Hashmi is pressing his point (others are free to do so as well; in fact over the years the Shiv Sena and MNS have made a big deal about Marathi speakers being excluded from certain buildings, so it is simply incorrect to say everyone accepts it — they might have no choice, but that doesn’t mean they like it).* SRK and Salman’s points are beside the point: Hashmi isn’t saying he is GENERALLY being discriminated against in India, he is simply saying he is being excluded FROM THIS BUILDING. Thus the sorts of comments (as Salman made) like “I wouldn’t be a big star if there was discrimination” are utterly irrelevant, and in fact distorting and mischievous. Imagine if, in response to Gates’ complaint in the US, people said he couldn’t have been discriminated against because Kobe Bryant is a big star!
[I personally don't know this particular building (I have heard there are Catholic families as well as Hindus in this building, so Hashmi's case seems a bit weaker; plus, even buildings that discriminate against Muslims probably don't against Muslim celebrities), but I am simply responding to the general point, i.e. it is hardly a defense to say "don't call me anti-X, because I discriminate against Y and Z as well as X".]
*[A caveat: not all "segmentation" is necessarily "hierarchical"; i.e. Indians do have a tendency to cluster around "their own kind", and I wouldn't automatically assume discrimination from that (some of it is certainly because one might feel safer; but it could also be because of practical things, e.g. I am Tamilian and want to stay in a Tamilian neighborhood so that the relevant stores, temples, cinemas, etc. are nearby). Often, outsiders and NRIs do not necessarily appreciate this, and look at everything through the prism of Jim Crow/black-white segregation/apartheid. Conversely, many Indians act as if benign "grouping" is all that is going on, but it clearly isn't in many instances in the cities: with modern living, etc., it is highly problematic to enforce these sorts of codes. For instance, someone might say that as a Muslim or a Marathi manoos one is being denied an apartment as a meat eater -- but no one checks if the Gujju you have rented to is eating meat at home. So discrimination is a concern.]
August 2, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Lucid as always Qalandar..
August 1, 2009 at 11:40 PM
Real discrimination does exist, but in my view, it gets weakened by these kinds of frivolous claims (like the Henry Gates brouhaha in the U.S. recently).
August 2, 2009 at 8:43 AM
I disagree with that the Gates issue was frivolous. There are many who’ve made a strong case in the media that a white professor in very similar circumstances would not have been handcuffed. Also I think we must also allow for ‘institutional racism’. One might behave along racial lines in unconscious ways. Of course another police officer just about made the Gates case for him by referring to him as a “jungle monkey” in an email, for which he has been disciplined and might even lose his job, The officer though suggested he should not be considered a racist based on that remark!
August 2, 2009 at 12:12 AM
I was listening to NPR and the commentator rightly said Obama factually was balanced but it was received symbolically, hence all the brouhaha.
August 2, 2009 at 8:44 AM
agreed.. and he had to walk back because it became a black v white thing and the black president was perceived as taking sides. It’s unfair but that’s the way it is.
August 2, 2009 at 8:45 AM
By the way some stereotyping myths were shattered with the ‘beer summit’. Obama had Bud Light, Gates had Red Stripes, so far so good.. but Crowley had the Belgian Blue Moon. This surprised some people. So the white tough as nails police office went it for an elitist beer and that too not an American one. LOL!
August 2, 2009 at 6:07 AM
Here’s the next step in the story:
Housing society hits out at Emraan Hashmi
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/NEWS/City/Mumbai/Housing-society-hits-out-at-Emraan-Hashmi/articleshow/4846000.cms
August 2, 2009 at 8:37 AM
a BJP police complaint against the guy:
http://ibnlive.in.com/printpage.php?id=98408§ion_id=8
August 2, 2009 at 8:49 AM
I don’t think Salman and SRK are being very sincere with their remarks either. Becoming a star in Bollywood does not prove anything one way or the other. Bollywood has always been a model institution in this sense, certainly the Muslim average here (specially when you include technicians and so forth) has far exceeded the national average in other walks of life (even if at times there has been religious or ethnic profiling in the lower ranks where it would not be noticed). Hashmi’s perceptions might be wrong (I don’t know either way, on the face of it I don’t consider the claim particularly implausible though Henry’s idea carried weight!) but ‘politically’ I doubt any ‘Muslim’ star in Bollywood is going to stand up with him.
August 2, 2009 at 8:45 PM
Since I am going to reply to several earlier posts, I am doing it here, and not individually to each one.
Qalandar, I think you misunderstood my statement. When I said that the exclusion of various groups from housing societies in Mumbai was “accepted”, I meant that it seemed to be the norm, and not considered illegal. Now I don’t agree with this, and am quite baffled by it. But it seems standard practice. If Hashmi doesn’t “accept” this, then he should not “accept” discrimination against any group, not just Muslims. But he is not saying that. He is only protesting that he could not buy the house he wanted — and even that claim seems very questionable in light of the other articles that have been published — not making a general case against discrimination of any group. Moreover, he did not limit himself to claiming discrimination by this one housing society, but turned it into a national and general issue, by saying things like (paraphrasing here), “India claims to be a secular nation, but where is the secularism when Muslims are discriminated against?” and implying that this is a constant and widespread discrimination in all aspects of life. It is that wider charge that I think Salman and SRK are responding to with their statements, because both also acknowledge that individual cases of discrimination may exist, but that it is not the rule, nor is it sanctioned by the greater society.
Now with further news coming out, two points have emerged. (1) That Hashmi interrupted a meeting of the Society Board when they were discussing some other pressing matter. They thus told him that they did not have his paperwork, and to come back at another time, but instead he interpreted that as a denial of his application (which was apparently yet to be decided on), held his press conference, and filed his complaint with the Minorities Board. (2)The Minorities Board requires proof (documentary, apparently) that Hashmi was denied *because he is a Muslim*, which he does not have, since no decision was made. The Chairman of the Board has also noted that the previous owner of his house in that same society was a Muslim, so he asks how they can be accused of discriminating against Muslims.
I find it a warning bell when someone phrases their complaint as, “If this happens to a celebrity like me …” (Hashmi) or “If this can happen to me, a Harvard professor … ” (Gates), because it says to me that it is more about their perceived status than any group identity they might have. If Hashmi, for instance, had been accepted at the housing society (which might yet happen), and he then encountered a non-celebrity Muslim who was denied entrance and believed he was being discriminated against because of his religion, would he be receptive to that notion, or would he dismiss it, because it hadn’t happened to him? Impossible to know, of course, but it is a point to keep in mind.
Similarly with Gates, what I find frivolous is the immediate and automatic assumption that it was a racial incident. A case can be made that the police officer overstepped his authority, or misused his discretionary powers, but then an equal case can be made that Gates exercised no judgement or discretion in the situation. From all I have read about the case, I do not see that any racial motive was operating in Crowley’s mind, though it may have been perceived in those terms by Gates, which shows the dangers of always assuming that race is the primary factor in any encounter.
This doesn’t negate the idea that there is racism in the greater society, or even in police forces. However, to assume from that that *every* white police officer is automatically a racist is wrong, unproductive, and racist.
As Freud is supposed to have said, “Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” and sometimes, people can be jerks without being racist. And while discrimination exists in many forms, it should not be used as a crutch for letting people off the hook for their own behavior. A Jewish friend of mine once told me about a friend of his, who’d applied for a job as a radio announcer (this was many, many years ago) and didn’t get it. He then told his friend, “I th-th-th-think it was b-b-b-eca-ca-cause I’m J-J-Jewish.”
August 2, 2009 at 9:37 PM
Re: “Now with further news coming out, two points have emerged. (1) That Hashmi interrupted a meeting of the Society Board when they were discussing some other pressing matter. They thus told him that they did not have his paperwork, and to come back at another time, but instead he interpreted that as a denial of his application (which was apparently yet to be decided on), held his press conference, and filed his complaint with the Minorities Board.”
I don’t know if I agree with “emerged”; in his interview with CNN-IBN, Hashmi seemed to be denying this, so this is a contested issue. Hashmi claimed his parents took an appointment, and were nevertheless fobbed off when they showed up.
Re: “(2)The Minorities Board requires proof (documentary, apparently) that Hashmi was denied *because he is a Muslim*, which he does not have, since no decision was made.”
This is correct, but goes to the issue of how an alleged violation is to be proved, and does not go the issue of whether or not one occurred. I accept it as a given that it is very difficult to prove such things. By way of analogy, it is very very very difficult to successfully maintain a case of sexual harassment in the USA — but that doesn’t mean that that sexual harassment is vanishingly rare.
Re: “If Hashmi doesn’t “accept” this, then he should not “accept” discrimination against any group, not just Muslims.”
This is a common mode of argument, but one I find unpersuasive. On this argument, people who complain against anti-Semitism should not be taken seriously until they complain about all other forms of discrimination that they could complain about. Should I not take a Kashmiri Pandit seriously if he claims about discrimination in Jammu & Kashmir, simply because he isn’t ALSO complaining about anti-Christian violence in Kandhamal, Orissa? I do not agree: that group/person is putting a certain concern forward, and cannot be burdened with global responsibilities that no one could fulfill. Similarly, Hashmi (assuming for a second his claim is correct) is claiming that he has been wronged, on the basis of him being a Muslim. It is not incumbent on him to take up cudgels on behalf of everyone else (especially as he doesn’t appear to be saying that it is OK to discriminate against non-Muslims). I might add that legally, a question of standing would be presented: i.e. Hashmi has a right to file a complaint with the Minorities Commission on behalf of himself, but I seriously doubt he has a right to do so on behalf of others in situations not involving him.
I personally do not know whether Hashmi is in the right or not — but by referring to “their own behavior”, you seem to be suggesting that it has been established what the facts are. Those facts are contested.
I agree with you that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (although, I note that the humor in that Freud quote arises precisely from the fact that Freud was trying to get out of someone turning a psychoanalytic gaze back on him using his own theory. i.e. the irony is that in the Freudian world, a cigar is never just a cigar– the humor arises not because that is a statement of common sense, but because, in the Freudian scheme of things, that is manifestly untrue) — but (and I repeat I do not know about this particular building society) given that housing discrimination (against Muslims, Marathi-speakers, etc.) is so common in India, Hashmi’s claim is not inherently implausible.
Re: “The Chairman of the Board has also noted that the previous owner of his house in that same society was a Muslim, so he asks how they can be accused of discriminating against Muslims.”
If this is true, it would seem to me to be a fatal blow to Hashmi’s case (which I had characterized as weak even prior to hearing about this claim).
Re: “Moreover, he did not limit himself to claiming discrimination by this one housing society, but turned it into a national and general issue, by saying things like (paraphrasing here), “India claims to be a secular nation, but where is the secularism when Muslims are discriminated against?” and implying that this is a constant and widespread discrimination in all aspects of life. It is that wider charge that I think Salman and SRK are responding to with their statements, because both also acknowledge that individual cases of discrimination may exist, but that it is not the rule, nor is it sanctioned by the greater society.”
That is a fair point. Although when it comes to housing, both you and I seem to agree that such discrimination is sanctioned by society and appears to be quite “normal” in India (and among all communities. That is, I have no doubt that Muslims also would engage in it; the reason this isn’t mostly an issue is that “Muslim neighborhoods” in most Indian cities are economically less well off, and thus non-Muslims who can afford it don’t typically want to move there. But I know of a prosperous neighborhood in Hyderabad where there are basically no non-Muslims, and from that I assume that a concerted policy of keeping others out is involved.
August 2, 2009 at 10:38 PM
Again I seem to have failed to make myself clear. I am not saying that one can’t claim discrimination without standing up against discrimination against any other group (though that would be the moral position). I am saying that, in this particular case of housing societies in Mumbai, it seems to be an established practice that one group or another is discriminated against as a matter of routine. The fact that it is well known and unchallenged to date makes me wonder if there is some sort of legal sanction for this practice in Mumbai, as I can’t understand otherwise how such gross discriminatory practices can be prolonged for so many decades, and also because I have not heard of such practices in any other major metro in India. I am not talking of individual acts of discrimination, but ones where it is written into the housing society’s rules. That seems to me to be extraordinary. So the issue here is not one person being discriminated against for whatever reason, but that the whole system is set to discriminate against everyone at one point or another. So if Hashmi wanted to address the larger issues at play, instead of questioning India’s secularism, which is a non-starter in my book, he should have asked how, given the constitutional guarantees of equality, housing societies were allowed to openly and blatantly discriminate. But then that would have brought out the point that the discrimination is against all people, whether by region of origin, caste, religion, or diet. That wouldn’t have gotten him as many headlines, though. That is why I am not convinced that he is worried about general discrimination as much as about his personal case, and why I also reject his implied claim to be representing all Muslims who are assumed to be discriminated against. He can make whatever case for himself that he believes.
Sorry to belabor this point, but just to make myself clearer: A Jewish person claiming anti-Semitism doesn’t have to address discrimination against other groups, because the law of the land is that no group can be discriminated against (though I think he ought to acknowledge that discrimination against Arabs is also anti-Semitism). But in the case of Mumbai housing societies, the practice (so common as to seem legal) is that everyone is discriminated against, so a Muslim being discriminated against (note that I am not questioning that it happened) is not anything unusual. The issue is why anybody can be excluded for whatever reason.
As for the legal standing, Hashmi may not be able to file a case with the Minority commission on behalf of any other group (especially since some of those excluded groups are actually part of the “majority”), but are there not such things as class action suits in India? I thought there were, and surely Hashmi can file a case in regular court on behalf of all people excluded from various housing societies?
Regarding Hyderabad, now that is a city that I am somewhat familiar with, and I have to question why you “assume that there is a concerted policy of keeping out others.” For one thing you are talking of one neighborhood. For another, I know of other neighborhoods in extremely prosperous neighborhoods in Hyderabad (Banjara Hills) with Muslim property owners, so does my anecdote trump yours? The point is that I am not aware of anything equivalent to the “housing societies” of Mumbai in Hyderabad, except for some state housing board’s developments, where basically anyone can buy property. Unless you can show me that such things exist in Hyderabad as well, I think we cannot draw any conclusions about any concerted efforts.
BTW, that article about the chairman buying his house from a previous Muslim owner was in DNA. I don’t think it proves anything, however, as that was 30 years ago, and the society could very well have changed its rules to keep out Muslims in the meantime.
August 3, 2009 at 1:35 AM
Re: “The fact that it is well known and unchallenged to date makes me wonder if there is some sort of legal sanction for this practice in Mumbai, as I can’t understand otherwise how such gross discriminatory practices can be prolonged for so many decades, and also because I have not heard of such practices in any other major metro in India.”
I am surprised: a year or two ago the magazine Outlook ran pieces on this sort of discrimination (specifically against Muslims) in delhi. On Hyderabad, there is no question of your anecdote “trumping” mine; you yourself acknowledge that I was talking about one neighborhood, so where’s the contradiction? I was not saying that EVERY neighborhood in Hyderabad fell into this category (my own uncle owns property in Banjara Hills, and has for years; that is manifestly not one of those areas). I merely said that the existence of some such areas led me to infer discrimination IN THE CASE OF THAT ONE AREA.
Re: “So if Hashmi wanted to address the larger issues at play, instead of questioning India’s secularism, which is a non-starter in my book, he should have asked how, given the constitutional guarantees of equality, housing societies were allowed to openly and blatantly discriminate.”
They do not “openly” and “blatantly” discriminate, in that there are no written rules to that effect (I imagine those might be illegal, or at a minimum embarrassing to the housing society).
Re: “…But are there not such things as class action suits in India? I thought there were, and surely Hashmi can file a case in regular court on behalf of all people excluded from various housing societies?”
I am not up to speed on class action law in India, but I do know that the mechanism is nowhere near as permissive in India as it is in the USA. [Conversely, there is such a thing as public interest litigation in India, wherein one might be able to file lawsuits on issues that don't personally affect one. This is the mechanism whereby people have filed lawsuits against the kiss in Dhoom 2; the alleged distortion of history in Jodha-Akbar, and various other films.]
Re: “So if Hashmi wanted to address the larger issues at play, instead of questioning India’s secularism, which is a non-starter in my book, he should have asked how, given the constitutional guarantees of equality, housing societies were allowed to openly and blatantly discriminate.”
Firstly, there is (or ought to be) no such thing as a non-starter. Secondly, I fail to see why Hashmi “should have” done what you propose — but if we start from the proposition that he’s concerned about his apartment, and not apartments in general; and his situation and not other people’s situations, except insofar as it affects him; why “should” he have done things differently than he has? [I might add that had he adopted the more global approach, the people who are now criticizing him for not taking the non-sectarian, broad-based approach, would just as easily have attacked him for politicizing what was his own personal issue about the flat.] Ultimately, arguments about the “backstory” — whether Hashmi is a fool, an opportunist, an upstanding citizen, or utterly cynical — are separate and distinct from the substance of the issue he is complaining about. Hashmi could be all of these things, but if he has been discriminated against, the fact that others also are; or that he didn’t raise the issue of other people being discriminated against; is no defense from the housing society’s perspective. I don’t see Hashmi as wishing to solve the wider social problem at all: I see him as wanting to solve his problem (again, assuming for a second he’s correct), and using the issue of discrimination against Muslims because that’s why he feels he was denied the apartment. Ditto on whether or not Hashmi is a publicity hound — even if he is, so what? I am a bit mystified that Hashmi’s approach has generated more criticism than the actual underlying allegations of discrimination (I say this as someone who cannot stand Mahesh Bhatt). IMO, it is the latter that is the real issue; Hashmi’s good or bad faith is irrelevant. This would be true even if he manufactured the controversy (he might well have, in the sense that he said in the CNN-IBN interview that he had been told in advance that he shouldn’t bother as the sale wouldn’t go through; in a similar vein, it is standard practice for civil rights groups and NGOs to pursue particular cases that they think will best position the political causes they are trying to advance — while other cases/controversies that implicate the same political issues, albeit in a less favorable way, are ignored or neglected.]
Re: “But in the case of Mumbai housing societies, the practice (so common as to seem legal) is that everyone is discriminated against, so a Muslim being discriminated against (note that I am not questioning that it happened) is not anything unusual. The issue is why anybody can be excluded for whatever reason.”
“so common as to seem legal” is the escape hatch here. Anti-semitism was “so common as to seem legal” in the USA in 1920, but that wouldn’t change my view that anyone complaining about it need not “should” also complain about other injustices too. I utterly fail to see why “so common as to seem legal” should be the determinative consideration. Assuming such discrimination is not legal in India,* it is nevertheless widely believed and experienced by any number of people in many cities (and not just Mumbai; I have mentioned Delhi’s example above. I know that in Chennai non-Brahmins will not be sold houses in certain areas. Mumbai’s example is simply the most famous, partly because it has long been India’s media capital, and partly because the extreme scarcity of residential space in Mumbai as a historical matter has generally heightened the significance of questions of access.)
*["Assuming" because I can see a counter-argument: some countries have laws prohibiting the state from discriminating, but do not prohibit private parties from discriminating. Thus a country club can legally exclude women, blacks, whites, whoever in the USA (it would be illegal to force them to admit, violating their freedom of association right. Yet other countries, while recognizing freedom of association rights, do not permit it where an essential service/good like housing is concerned (but do permit it in religious practice: e.g. a church is not obliged to allow non-Christians to join; or leisure activities, etc.) I don't know which category India falls under (another possibility is that while it might be ok to discriminate openly -- e.g. a housing society of, by, and for Marwaris -- it is not ok to do so covertly, or where the regulations are written in neutral terms). The above comments have all assumed that such discrimination by a private housing society is illegal -- but it might not be (presumably the assumption is a safe one, as Hashmi would presumably not have held a press conference without at least consulting a lawyer).]
August 3, 2009 at 1:39 AM
Re: “The point is that I am not aware of anything equivalent to the “housing societies” of Mumbai in Hyderabad, except for some state housing board’s developments, where basically anyone can buy property. Unless you can show me that such things exist in Hyderabad as well, I think we cannot draw any conclusions about any concerted efforts.”
I disagree: there are many forms of discrimination. Thus, if, instead of a housing board, you have an owners’ group that formally or informally colludes with each other not to sell to anyone except members of a certain community (in my example, Muslims), then that is discriminatory. To elevate one form of discrimination above others, even though they have the same practical effect, and are both illegal, is to make a fetish out of form. BTW, it would be difficult for anyone to “show” these things, since most sensible people will not write down discriminatory rules. Thus, even in the US, the civil rights laws allow one to show discriminatory EFFECT, and to infer intent from that effect — one is not limited to arguing discrimination solely on the basis of what is said or written.
August 3, 2009 at 1:50 AM
Re: “The fact that it is well known and unchallenged to date makes me wonder if there is some sort of legal sanction for this practice in Mumbai, as I can’t understand otherwise how such gross discriminatory practices can be prolonged for so many decades…”
This is surprising: the world is full of “gross discriminatory practices” that persist for decades after they are outlawed. Consider the disenfranchisement of African-Americans in the American South, which persisted for roughly a century after it was outlawed. In India, consider the example of Dalits being denied access to certain village water wells on the basis of caste, which has been illegal for decades, and nevertheless continues in many villages. So too with housing in Mumbai. In all these cases, despite the law, the fact is that there are large groups of people, politically and/or socially influential, who wish to maintain the discriminatory practice and are able to do so — perhaps because the political will to enforce the law is not there; perhaps because it is very difficult for the state to act against very large numbers of law-breakers (e.g. the US will not jail everyone who smokes marijuana, even though that is illegal; or everyone who visits a prostitute, though that is too; or everyone who illegally downloads — i.e. they won’t even bother to try, because they’d have to jail millions of people). One surely cannot reverse-infer legality from the fact that people persist in a practice after it has been outlawed.
August 3, 2009 at 2:17 AM
Some links that might be of interest:
http://www.hindu.com/2009/05/08/stories/2009050855361100.htm (Excerpt: “Illustrating this with a personal experience Ms Azmi said not long ago she was quoted as complaining that she and her husband Javed Akhtar could not find a house of their choice in Bombay because they were Muslim.
“What I had in fact said was that I was not bitter about it because discrimination happens against everyone. They edited out that sentence and I was left sounding as a bitter Muslim complaining about discrimination — and this led to a huge controversy,” she said.”)
http://kafila.org/2009/03/30/the-great-house-hunt/ (Delhi)
http://kafila.org/2009/03/20/the-shame-of-a-name/ (Bangalore)
Interesting bit on possible legal responses (I noted with interest that the Supreme Court has apparently upheld the right of a Parsee housing society to rent only to Parsees): http://indianmuslims.in/discrimination-by-housing-societies-possible-legal-responses/ & http://lawandotherthings.blogspot.com/2009/03/shame-of-name-and-great-house-hunt.html
August 3, 2009 at 4:35 AM
This is interesting because this is the second time i hear about a case of discrimination from a star. Even if Hashmi looks hysterical, i thought that the problem would be taken more seriously. But instead, the general answer is “don’t act like you’re the only one”… . Could be this a sign that the general agrees in silence because it’s more convenient to everyone or is it that everyone find the problem too big to be resolved ? Just a question… .
August 3, 2009 at 8:27 AM
Qalandar, I think I see where the confusion is occurring. You are talking of covert discrimination. I am talking about overt discrimination. The former can occur anywhere, any time, and is harder to combat through legislation.
What I understand in the case of the Mumbai housing societies is that they have overt discrimination — this building is only for Gujaratis, this building is only for Christians, etc. That is why I called it “open and blatant”, and why I wondered how it could be legal. HOwever, I think your suggestion that it could be legal because these societies are private entities makes sense, and that is what I think is happening here, and why everybody knows about it and thinks it’s no big deal.
Thus all the examples you gave about anti-semitism in the 1930′s, etc., don’t apply, because they are all cases of covert discrimination — which is what made it so difficult to bring it out into the open and then try to solve it.
So my point is: If what Hashmi encountered is the overt discrimination that seems to be standard practice in Mumbai, then it cannot be called discrimination against Muslims (except at this particular building), because that society is legally entitled to set whatever conditions it wants on its members. He only has to find a building that does allow Muslim owners, and we know they do exist, because several prominent Muslims in fact do own flats in that locality. Moreover, since every society tries to keep out some group or another, it is not an action directed only against one group, namely Muslims. In this scenario, his objection should be to the overall system that allows each society to discriminate against whomever it pleases.
If, on the other hand, what Hashmi encountered is covert discrimination, then he needs to bring it to light, and only concern himself with the discrimination he himself faced, since this is not something that is experienced by any other group.
I hope that makes my position clear.
It’s too late for me to go into any more detail, and anyway, it doesn’t seem that verbosity is leading to clarity, so I will try the concise approach.
(and btw, when I asked you to “show me” such instances in Hyderabad, I was specifically referring to these kinds of housing societies with clearly spelled out rules about who can or cannot join, such as exist in Mumbai.)
August 3, 2009 at 8:28 AM
Oh, also, thanks for all those links. I will read them later, as I am pressed for time right now.
August 4, 2009 at 5:20 AM
Nice argument going on in here.But I am so upset with this whole issue.Never expected this thing could create such commotion and controversy,even leading shahrukh and salman to give comments.Yet I am not sure who’s to be blamed here actually : the society or Emraan himself though I’d say he has magnified this thing more than was needed.Detractors are saying this a cheap publicity stunt planned by him but I think Emraan would be the last man to do that thing considering the fact that he has always been choosing to keep a low profile in the industry.
Well does this issue affect his career and his fanbase?Does it hamper with the release of his upcoming films?Any conjectures or surmises?
August 4, 2009 at 8:16 PM
Salman and Sharukh didn’t “give comments”. They were asked about this issue when they were at some other event. That can be taken (at least by me) as the media trying to fan a “controversy”, just like they do about alleged “cold wars” between this and that star.
Here is a video of Salman’s response, where he states that in his opinion, the objection is to a film star, not to a Muslim, and even says what I speculated above, that because he was living in his building before he became a film star, it was OK.
http://www.bollywoodhungama.com/broadband/video/Parties-and-Events/CYSkyU43/3/Salman-On-Emraan-s-Minority-Issue.html
As for this issue affecting Hashmi’s career, why should it? As I mentioned, Saif also claimed discrimination last year some time, but it hasn’t affected his career. Even if some people believe this is a publicity stunt by Hashmi, it’s not as if film stars don’t indulge in such things all the time, so why should it affect him negatively? The only negative consequence that I can see is, if people believe that Hashmi is making a mountain out of a molehill, some other non-celeb Muslim who does experience discrimination may find it difficult to make his case and have it taken seriously.
August 4, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Aside: if an indictment for terrorism and a conviction under the Arms Act did not hurt Sanju’s popularity; and if Aamir’s tangle with the BJP on the Narmada dam issue did not affect his popularity (it did prevent Fanaa’s release in Gujarat, but that’s a different issue), I highly doubt Hashmi has anything to fear.
August 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM
Case falls flat; Hashmi, housing society patch up
Press Trust Of India
Mumbai: In a U-turn actor Emraan Hashmi, who had alleged that he was denied a flat by a housing society because he was Muslim, said on Monday that there was no discrimination against him.
He also added that the controversy arose because of a miscommunication.
“The dispute between me and the members of Nibbana housing society has been resolved. The society had not discriminated against me. There had been a miscommunication,” Hashmi told reporters after a hearing on his complaint at the State Minorities Commission.
Hashmi’s lawyer Majeed Memon said that a broker Jagjit Arora had told the 34-year-old actor that the society had refused to sell the flat as Hashmi was a Muslim.
“The secretary of the society – JP Chatri – today (Monday) told Emraan that they had not discriminated against the actor and that if anyone in the building wants to sell their flat then Emraan can buy it,” Memon said.
Chatri told the Commission that they would not refuse a house to the actor on religious grounds as there are several other Muslims residing in the building.
The owner of the flat DU Suvarna, who was also present during the hearing, said he would be more than happy to sell the flat to the actor who is like a “son” to him.
“I have not decided on what I will do with my flat. But if I decide to sell the flat then my first choice would be Hashmi,” Suvarna told the Commission.
On July 31, Hashmi had approached the Minorities Commission accusing the housing society in Pali Hill of religious discrimination by not providing the No Objection Certificate (NOC) to him to purchase a flat in the society.
The society houses film and television actors including well known villain Prem Chopra.
“The issue has been blown out of proportion by the media. It was a miscommunication and has been resolved after all the parties sat across the table today,” chairman of the Minorities Commission Naseem Siddiqui said.
August 10, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Siddiqui’s statement is ridiculous: it was not the media that blew this out of proportion; Hashmi made a serious claim, and called a press conference — to the extent this charge was baseless, how is it the media’s fault?
August 10, 2009 at 9:21 AM
hi q bhai
agree q bhai in the perspective of events u r correct but doesnt media have a option how much footage to be given or not to a particular story….
i wish (ofcourse it will never happen
) that indian media becomes a active one who appliies mind with a quality based approach instead of trp base approach…media new this story will get audience and as they say taali do haath se nahin bachti hain…
similiarly emraan firstly liable but if media had taken a sensitive view i feel it could have a got a better treatment… as we see here in Gujarat such issues of housing society and religious discrimination are volatile issues…
August 10, 2009 at 9:27 AM
The media sucks, no question about it. But I feel primary responsibility rests with Hashmi (btw, it is clear such discrimination is a serious issue, and I never objected to him raising it; I object to people saying NOW that it was all a “misunderstanding”, which smacks of bad faith)…
August 12, 2009 at 1:10 AM
more from Hashmi:
Religious profiling works both ways: Emraan Hashmi
As he awaits the verdict of State Minorities Commission (SMC) on his complaint against a south Mumbai housing society, Bollywood star Emraan Hashmi says he knows religious profiling is practised by people in more than one community. Emraan has complained he was not allowed to buy a house in the society because he is a Muslim.
“The problem of being denied property on grounds of religion is prevalent all over the country. Now so many Muslims have come forward claiming the same. And mind you, I know religious profiling works both ways.
“I know of Muslim colonies where Hindus are not allowed to stay. I spoke out as a segregated citizen, not a Muslim.I want all discrimination in property allotment to go. Otherwise why do we call ourselves a democracy?” Emraan said.
August 12, 2009 at 1:10 AM
Somewhat relevant piece from Outlook:
Opinion
Tales From The Qutub Minar
The potent mix of religion and politics raises tensions in Mehrauli as the local Urdu press, by and large, supports the right to pray in protected shrines, adding to the “siege mentality”.
Saba Naqvi
This is a tale of urban chaos, growing religiosity, the skewed development of the Muslim community and human excreta among ancient monuments.
I am fortunate to live in a modern apartment in the heart of one of the most historic parts of Delhi. It is a short distance from the Qutub Minar and I often take my morning walk in the Mehrauli Archaoelogical Park, past the Jamali Kamali tomb, the Raja ki Baoli, the tomb of Balban, all amazing remnants of the Delhi sultanate period. On the odd winter day I have also walked the distance to the historic Jahaj Mahal Phool bazaar, still the main wholesale flower market of Delhi. I have often told friends I would much rather negotiate the messy lanes of an area like Mehrauli then live in a gated community with neat lawns and hedges.
In spite of the romance with the past, I try not to live in an ivory tower and my frequent walks make it impossible to ignore the reality of contemporary Mehrauli. It is basically a Muslim-dominated ghetto, an urban slum. Buildings like the one I live in make arrangements for water and electricity but most residents have no sanitation or plumbing facilities and large families are cramped into tiny rooms. As migrants keep moving into the ghetto, there is a constant pressure on limited land, resources and tiny homes. That is why many crumbling ruins have been taken over and tiny mazaars have, over the years, become “living” monuments, which technically means they are used for worship, but I am playing on the term and specifically mean that people get a chance to live there with their ever expanding families.
For the past few weeks, there has been a troubling attempt to claim that even the few monuments protected by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) are “living” shrines, and hence can be used for the weekly congregational prayers. Every Friday, the Mehrauli area is now blockaded by Delhi police, BSF and ITBP who are there to stop a group of men who collect there with prayer mats and try to enter the protected monuments. Last Friday, there was a clash between police and the namazees who subsequently blockaded the MG road that links Delhi to Gurgaon . Home Minister P. Chidambaram said the sternest measures would be taken to protect the monuments. He was true to his word and a virtual army arrived in Mehrauli the next Friday, August 7. The day was tense but the huge troop deployment ensured that the problem was contained.
It not just the monuments that are at stake. Mehrauli is a relatively sensitive locality. On September 27 last year a bomb exploded in the flower market killing three people. On June 8 this year an alleged member of the LeT, Mohammad Madani, was arrested from the neighbourhood. A well connected local shopkeeper says that the VHP also arrived with some young men after the namazees began making their claims. The namazees were brought to Mehrauli by a Congress MLA and the VHP cadres came from other parts of Delhi. Again, the potent mix of religion and politics.
The tragic irony is that Mehrauli still hosts the phool walon ki sair, a tradition that celebrates a composite Hindu-Muslim culture. It involves a chadar of flowers being offered at the dargah of Sufi saint Bakhtiar Kaki and the Yogmayaji temple. It began during the Mughal period, was discontinued by the British during the Quit India movement in 1942 and kept in abeyance during the Partition and resumed by Jawaharlal Nehru in 1962. It continues to date now as a government sponsored show of inter-religious harmony with many states of India also sending their offerings. But the reality today is that the density of shrines also makes administrators nervous and on festivals police and security forces are visible although there has been no communal flare up.
A two minute walk from my house, the prominent Dadabadi Jain mandir stands opposite a protected mosque. While the mosque has been badly neglected, the temple is prospering. So far the wealthy shrine has not given back to the locality in any way. Jain devotees arrive in huge cars and air-conditioned buses, completely block the narrow winding road, and drive away presumably having made their peace with their god. Many do walk the few steps to the entrance of the lovely little park maintained by the DDA. For some strange reason they have taken to feeding the local monkeys perched on the gate of the park. Many regular walkers including yours truly have been attacked by the monkeys fattened by devotees. Neither the namazees nor the temple devotees have any respect for public spaces, a highly developed concept in the West, China and some other countries of south-east Asia. In India, many believe the right to pray supersedes any other right.
I asked a well known cleric why some members of the community were bent on disturbing peace and taking over shrines. He said there is a genuine shortage of mosques. I made two points to him: Can’t a Muslim pray anywhere as long as he turns in the direction of Mecca? And wouldn’t it be more productive for the community to demand the right to education, food, jobs? He smiled pleasantly and told me that I would not understand as I clearly did not appear to be a believer. An editor of an Urdu publication told me that the reason why “irrelevant issues” are raised is because Muslims now have a siege mentality and it is easy to get them charged up on any “Islam in danger” theme. In this instance, the local Urdu press has, by and large, supported the right to pray even in protected shrines.
The “victim-hood syndrome” has been so carefully nurtured by the political class hand-in-glove with clerics that it is now deeply ingrained in the Muslim ghetto. As with other social groups, there is no doubt that Muslims face prejudice in many walks of life. While l’affaire Emraan Hashmi may have been a genuine case of miscommunication, I personally have been told bluntly by brokers that in some areas in Delhi they don’t want to rent to Muslims and some landlords are very explicit about it. House-hunting in India can be a reality check but I’ve refused to ever felt like a victim. What does depress me, however, is a world where people don’t have basic necessities but raise a hue and cry over the slightest of religious issues.
What Mehrauli needs is not an infusion of the devout but a master-plan for the residents of the urban ghetto that threatens to swamp the monuments. It is a fascinating neighbourhood, through which Delhi Tourism and independent groups organize walks, where archaeologists still dig and find remnants of the past. But it is metaphorically and literally being overrun by human excreta. The lanes linking Mehrauli village to the archaeological park are now an open toilet and the open land near the Jain mandir a huge garbage dump through which pigs loiter. The semi-literate residents of the ghetto defecate in the open because they are cramped into tenements without plumbing and often without toilets. They are the poor migrants who have no choice but to wander around looking for a corner to relieve themselves. When basic needs can barely be met, who cares for preserving the past?
August 12, 2009 at 10:55 AM
good article- except he fails to mention that when he mentions Muslim Migrants- he should make it clear that most of of them are actually Illeagal Migrants from Bangladesh and Pakistan.