[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Hindu-Muslim Relationship, The Widening Divide
-
To: ALT-HINDU@cis.ohio-state.edu
-
Subject: Hindu-Muslim Relationship, The Widening Divide
-
From: Dinesh Agrawal <DXA4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
-
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 1995 13:16:26 -0400 (EDT)
-
From DXA4@PSUVM.PSU.EDU Wed Aug 2 13: 06:07 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Penn State University
THE WIDENING DIVIDE, By Dr. Rafiq Zakaria
Review by M.V. Kamath
" Muslims must now convince Hindus of their love for their country and that
it is as deep as that for their religion, and instead of resenting the
taunt of disloyalty, they should try to dispel it". Dr. Zakaria
Is there a divide between Hindus and Muslims in India? If there is one,
is it widening, is there any way of bridging it? And if there is a way,
who is to undertake it? It is now an accepted fact that there indeed is a
divide, that this divide has been widening ever since the demolition of
the Babri structure and that there has been no serious effort to bridge it.
The pessimism is understandable but unwarranted. Many Hindus have blamed
Muslims, especially the extremist among them, for widening the divide and
the compliment has been returned. That is not likely to take the country
anywhere. On the face of it the situation looks bleak but of late there
seems to be a new awakening among Muslims which is very happy development.
Liberal Muslims are speaking out like Maulana Wahiduddin Khan who wants
Muslims to look beyond the Babri Masjid demolition. There is no doubt that
the demolition of the Babri Masjid jolted them into a sense of reality.
Muslims clearly have been feeling, as Maulana Khan recently wrote, not
merely frustration and despondency but "a deep sense of humiliation".
But according to the Maulana it is also "an undeniable fact that both
Hindu and Muslim public have put the issue of Ayodhya behind them and that
"it is high time now that both communities diverted their full attention
to more constructive acitivities." This is where a book just published
and written by Dr. Rafiq Zakaria called The Widening Divide, makes
eminent sense. Says Dr. Zakaria: "The Hindu communalists may be criticized,
attacked and condemned but they can no longer be ignored. They have to
be brought round even if it takes a long time and in the process, we of
the older generation may all be dead." Dr. Zakaria's book is an important
contribution towards bridging the gulf between Hindus and Muslims. One
does not have to agree will all his conclusions, but there is here a
genuine, sincere effort to accept Muslim misdeeds in the past, even while
explaining them in the context of their times. He is strongly critical of
the "tinpot agitators" in his community and deeply regrets that even after
fifty years of Independence "the impression continues to persist that the
communalists are more representative of the Muslim masses than the secularsts".
He reminds his readers of those times when there was amity between Hindus
and Muslims, when Vijaynagar employed thousands of Muslims in both civil
and military establishments, when an entire contingent of Rana Sanga was
Muslim and in Shivaji's army a substantial section was adherent of Islam.
He is critical of Aurangzeb, insisting that he had no right to destroy
temples or to impose jaziya on the Hindus because his wars were not religious
but for imperial advancement. He is all praise for Shivaji for not being
a bigot or fanatic. He is critical of the British for widening the
alienation between Hindus and Muslims. He is even more strongly critical
of Jinnah for "poisoning" the Hindu mind against the Muslim, though he
does not spare Nehru for his role in rejecting the Cabinet Mission's plan.
According to him, the Viceroy, Lord Wavell "would have managed to bring
Jinnah around, if Nehru and Patel were more flexible". For all that, he
is in full agreement with Maulana Azad who told Muslims after Partition
had taken place that "the debacle of Indian Muslims is the result of the
colossal blunders committed by the Muslim League's misguided leadership".
Dr Zakaria claims that "Muslim phobia has come the central point of
Indian politics" but does not hesitate to simultaneously point out that
"Indian Muslims, on their part have done little to help remove it" and
that "on the contrary, due to the behaviour of some of their leaders, the
situation threatens to become explosive and deteriorate furthers".
It is Dr Zakaria's view that Indian Muslims see the demand for a
Uniform Civil Code pursued by the champions of Hindutva "as an attack
on their traditional values which are an integral part of their religion".
It may be a wrong assesment of the demand, but it exists and Hindus must
give due recognition to it. The sad thing is that because of the
misunderstanding, the pace of reform among Muslims has slowed down causing
as Dr Zakaria puts it "unncessary animosity on either side" with Muslims
doubting the bonafides of Hindus and Hindus resenting the "obstinacy" of
the Muslims. Dr. Zakaria himself thinks that the orthodox mullahs have
thwarted the advancement of their co-religionists by "misquoting scriptures
and sticking to outdated forms and practices". And he condemns them by
quoting Prof Ziauddin Sardar of King Abdul Azis University, Jeddah, who
made the point that the mullahs "have close and constricted many
inquiring minds by their insistence on unobjective parallels, unending
quibbles over semantics", having "divorced themselves from human needs and
conditions". Dr Zakaria's views are not one-sided. He is equally critical of
Hindus whose zeal for a uniform civil code, he says, is more hypocritical
than imbued with a zeal for reform. Hindus may deny it vigorously, but it
would be a mistake not to read Dr Zakaria with due respect. He is presenting
a Muslim point of view. Here is a man who dares his own co-religionists,
tells them, for example, that their opposition to Vande Mataram is
irrational, that they should not feel offended if a Hindu dignitary begins
a project with puja, that the Mulayam Singhs and Laloo Yadavs have succeeded
against Hindu communalism not because of their anti-communal stand but
due to their pro-casteist pincer movement, and that the past, with all its
faults, must now be forgotten and that Muslims "must now convince Hindus
of their love for their country and that it is as deep as that for their
religion" and "instead of resenting the taunt of disloyalty, they should
try to dispel it."
Towards the end he tells his coreligionists that "it is time they gave
up their suicidal tendency of getting excited over temporary irritants
which invariably lead to a Hindu backlash against them" and of constantly
talking about "preserving their identity". Here is a voice speaking both
to Muslims and Hindus. It should not go unread.
