[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
India's Muslim Problem
INDIA'S MUSLIM PROBLEM
By Mohan Guruswamy
Hindustan Times, June 22, 1995
Pakistan, the land of the pure, was carved out of India as a homeland
for Muslims, a fact that was doubly ensured by the "cleansing" out of
most of the Non-Muslims who were living within it. Yet India continued
to be homeland for all Indians, Hindu and Muslim, Christian or Sikh,
from Assam to Rajasthan, from Kerala to Kashmir - a nation of many faiths
and nationalities. Even those Hindu nationalists who for long took a
simplistic view of the partition as India for hindus and Paksitan for
Muslims have now largely come to accept this as the reality and, therefore,
have begun to come to terms with it.
One of the greatest ironies of Muslim separatism and the partition
that it culminated in was that those who wanted it least for Pakistan
and those that wanted it most got left behind in India. Separatism was
most vehemently espoused by the aggressive and fanatical Muslim elites
of UP and Bihar. The Muslim League was strongest in these two regions.
The Punjabi and Sindhi Muslims who for long had little to do with the
politics of separatism got swept up by the communalism that was unleashed
by the UP and Bihari Muslim Leaguers.
Barring a few, the majority of these Muslim separatists stayed on in
India and soon joined the "secularist" bandwagon of the COngress. In
due course nationalist Muslim leaders made way for communalists. It
did not take long for the Muslim community to become a vote bank to
be represented and manipulated by the former separatists who now began to
project it as nation within a nation. We are reaping the bitter harvest now.
The other great irony of partition is that while an aavowedly Islamic
Pakistan, for long under military rule and now a military aided
democracy, tackled the minorities question with typical sectarian despatch,
democratic and self-professedly secular India still seeks to find ways
and means to tackle Muslim communalists and separatists. The reason
for this is as much due to the natural dynamics of democracy in which
the competition for power creates an impetus for the solidification of
lesser identities, as to the single minded and selfish pursuit of power
by Congress politicians and their clones in other parties.
We have to only look at the manner in which the Congress party
reacted on the Shah Bano judgement and thus negated the impetus it
would have had provided to the enectment of a common civil code.
When Arif Mohemmade Khan spoke in the Lok Sabha, with the encouragement
of Rajiv gandhi, he was applauded by all except the orthodox and
neo-separatist Muslim lobby. Then Rajiv Gandhi, like a typical
"secular" politician panicked at the thought of the Muslim vote
bank dwindling and unleashed Zia-ul-Ansari. Soon neo-separatist
Muslims all over the country joined in the attack and Arif was
manhandled, jostled and jeered in an organised manner wherever he
went. Seeing the Congress leadership, if not, tacitly encouraging
this, then certainly inert to happenings. Arif resigned. The term
"pseudo-secularism" entered our political lexicon shortly thereafter.
Arif's travails did not end there. Things were no better in the VP
Singh-led Jan Morcha. Syed Shahabuddin has a precondition to his
campaigning for VP Singh in Allahabad. If Arif, till then VP Singh's
closest associate and co-founder of the Jan-Morcha, were to campaign
in Allahabad then he would not campaign. Suddenly Arif was taboo in
Allahabad and Syed Shahabuddin joined in VP Singh's battle to change
the system! Manuy of us in our anxiety to inflict defeat on Rajiv
Gandhi countenanced this. VP Singh soon changed his position and came
out against a common civil code. In private he justified this as a
tactic dictated by the compulsions of the electoral calculus. In
public, he called his pandering to Muslim communalists secularism.
Electoral compulsions were soon to become the only calculus for him.
Just as communalism became secularism, casteism became social justice.
Arif's travails did not end even here. The BJP which applauded all
his bold and truly secular positions defeated him in 1991. But there
was a silver lining to this. The Congress and the Janata Dal which
both made a habit of compromising with the crasest form of Muslim
communalism were soundly trounced in the same elections and Arif with
the support of the majority of Bahraich's Muslims and many Hindus
came a close second to the BJP's Rudrasen Chowdhury.
Clearly many Muslims, particularly the younger generation, are
now tiring of the politics of neo-separatism. As the so-called
secular and allegedly liberal parties continue to pander to the
neo-separatists, the younger Muslim is seeking avenues to express
his or her aspirations. One of the fallouts of the chaos and
destruction in the wake of the Ayodhya incident is that, both,
Hindus and Muslims are now congnizant of the potential each
community has for assuredly inflicting upon the other a painful
degree of destruction and damage.
This has injected new dynamics to the Hindu-Muslim equation. For
the first time many Muslims have expressed reservations of the brand
of secularism or pseudo-secularism being practised by the so-called
liberal parties. This is reflected in the fact that a good percentage
of Muslims voted for the BJP in Gujarat and Maharashtra. This new
reality has apparantly been recognized by the BJP leadership as in
recent days we have seen some moves that reflect this.
Now that the dilapidated and disused mosque has been downed, many
Muslims realise that little purpose can be served by insisting on its
construction at the very site. The Andhra COngress president, Kamaluddin
Ahmed, for one had not long ago publicly appealed that the Muslim
community and more particularly its leadership must now rethink this
position. But as long as the "secular" parties like the Janata Dal and
Samajwadi Party give shelter or support to rabid Muslim communalists,
it is unlikely that good sense and reason will come to the fore. For
Hindus the Ayodhya site is important. For Muslims the building was.
As long as Hindus are a majority in this country no confluence of
political compulsions can come about that will allow the site to be
given back to the Muslims for building a mosque there once again.
Demanding the site for this by the neo-separatists is only a provocation,
particularly as it has no theological or sentimental value except
perhaps as a symbol of the alien Muslim power that once dominated
most of India.
Even at the individual level many Muslims continue to be provocative
in their actions. GO to any small Muslim owned shop, or restaurants,
or even to Muslim homes. It is by far more likely than not that all
the persons employed in them will be Muslims. If Muslims continue to
behave in this manner how can they demand and expect anything different
from the Hindus who are not immune from chauvinism.
Another issue which aggravates Hindu-Muslim ties is the apparent
lack of concern for the national position on Kashmir displayed by the
Muslim leadership so far. If the only region in India where Muslims
are in a majority wishes to secede because they belong to a different
faith, it becomes incumbent on the Muslims in the rest of India to make
known their opposition to it. The future of Kashmir has a vital bearing
upon their future also. If Kashmir were to be lost the risks of the old
and now discarded idea of India for the Hindus and Pakistan for the
Muslims will gain momentum again. Yet Muslim leaders who are quick to
make an issue over relatively trivial issues like the movie "Bombay",
have preferred to remain silent on this vital national concern.
This writer once asked Syed Shahabuddin to speak out on this issue.
Shahabuddin's reply was somrthing to the extent that why should he speak
out when what is happening in Kashmir is happening to Muslims in the
rest of India? What is happening in Kashmir is because there is a
fundamentalist fanned war for accession to Pakistan being waged
there on the State of India. By no stretch of imagination can it be
said that similar conditions prevail in the rest of the country.
Muslim localities are not being subjected to cordon and search. The army
and paramilitary are not out in the narrow streets of Ballimaran
or in Kishenganj. There is no night curfew in the old city area of
Hydrabad.
This is not just Shahabuddin's position alone. Abdullah Bukhari,
Salahuddin Owaissi and others have also expressed similar views.
What is even worse is the silence of the so-called secular Hindu
on this. No VP Singh or Chandra Shekhar or Arjun Singh has called
upon the Muslim community to take a position on Kashmir with a
view to positively influence the situation there. Of late, a few
Muslim intellectuals have taken natinalist positions on this. More
need to be encouraged. Leaders of the main national parties have a
duty to provide these persons with appropriate platforms to extend
the reach of their opinions. So far there has been little
sign of this.
Shahabuddin who is also a prolific writer of letters to editors, has
in a recent letter on the movie "Bombay" while criticising a reviewer's
rather simplistic view that the Hindu-Muslim divide can be bridged by
interreligious marriages wrote that "the solution lies in mutual respect
and tolerance." For once he is right. But to expect mutual respect and
tolerance in the face of constant and deliberate provocation is to
expect the impossible.
Sensitivity to each other's feelings and aspirations has to be a
mutual affair. An essential precondition to this is to share a common
perception of history. Dr BR Ambedkar postulated that a shared
perception of history is one of the essentials of a common natinality.
The Indian Muslims' history did not begin with the conquest of Sind by
Muhammed Bin Kasim. Our common odyssey began much earlier than that. The
Indian Muslim needs to identify with that period also. The Muslim
conquest of India equally victimised the Hindu as it did the indigenous
Muslim.
