HVK Archives: Time to turn history the right way round
Time to turn history the right way round - The Telegraph
Sk Sadar Nayeem
()
23 June 1997
Title: Time to turn history the right way round
Sub-Title : A debate on Partition as demanded by the BJP would expose the
biases in the Hindu attitude Muslims
Author: Sk Sadar Nayeem
Publication: The Telegraph
Date: June 23, 1997
For the past two years an impression had gained ground that the Bharatiya
Janata Party had learnt to play its role as a responsible political party.
To gain greater acceptability, the party made no efforts to evoke mass
frenzy during this period. Even L.K. Advani's rath yatra seemed a far cry
from the 1992 yatra undertaken in the name of Ram. Advani appeared intent
on crossing 15,000 kilometres through 21 states to "kindle the dimmed flame
of patriotism". The sole objective was to pay homage to the nation's
martyrs "without discrimination" on the 50th year of independence.
Curiously however, he chose Bhopal, a Muslim dominated area, to come out of
his self imposed restraint. Judging from the poor response to his yatra,
Advani thought going back to the hardline Hindutva stand would help him
reenter the thick of things.
At a press conference on June 12, Advani called upon Muslims to "purge from
their mindset every trace of ideological/theological underpinnings of the
two nation theory" - thereby holding the community virtually responsible
for the partition.
Advani's problem is obvious. The politics of absolute polarization has
already consolidated the anti-BJP votes. The BJP cannot capture power in
New Delhi unless it has absolute majority. And given the current trend of
coalition politics, this seems unlikely. Regional issues have replaced
national concerns; regional outfits have stolen a march on national
parties. Moreover, the BJP's disappointing performance in states where it
is in power - infighting, charges of corruption - makes the party
indistinguishable from the other parties.
Advani realizes the BJP will be unable to work itself towards the centre of
the various socio-political struggles taking place in the country. Only an
issue of majority concern, like the Ram mandir movement could hold the
imagination, albeit temporarily, of the nation. The 50th year of
independence, with the spirit of patriotism and nationalism running high,
presents the BJP another opportunity to capture the popular imagination, to
push forward its ideals. The theoretical postulates of these ideals, the
equating of collective identity with Hindutva or Indianness, inherently
places the party in opposition to the minority community. The latter
invariably emerge as villains of the Indian saga.
Advani complains that even after 50 years of creating a separate Muslim
nation, unity, emotional integration and durable peace between Hindus and
Muslims has remained elusive. He fails to realize that unless freed of
reinforced saffron prejudices against Muslims, the distrust between the
communities will prove ineradicable.
Take the way Indian history is represented. "Muslim rule" is projected as
"one thousand years of Muslim invasion, conquest and conversions". The
Muslim rulers apparently were the only rulers in the country reigning to
promote their own interests. That in the medieval period Muslim conquest of
India was an extension into a new country of a well established society and
a living culture is forgotten.
This was precisely the reason Hindu society, despite assimilating barbarian
invaders, found it difficult to absorb the Muslim invaders. It hardened
into a closed society by refusing to absorb Arabs, Persians, Trks, Afghans
or Mongols into its fold. An ethnic relationship was thus broken by a new
cultural and social association, while the parting of ways also ended
social intercourse between members of the two communities.
The continued xenophobia led Muslims to believe it would be difficult
protecting the interests of the community in an independent India.
Long before Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the basis of the two nation theory had
been laid by Hindu patriots themselves. The religious colour given to
Indian nationalism had been a guiding force behind cultural revivalism in
the second half of the 19th century.
On being asked why the newspaper Hindu Mahamela had the prefix Hindu,
eminent journalist Nabagopal Mitra said, "Hindus are a nation and it is the
aim of the paper to unite this nation". Pakistan was not created because
Indian Muslims wanted Pakistan. It was the Muslim elite and
landlord-clergy alliance which hastened its creation. And Hindu
communalists more than helped the process. The irony is that the stigma of
partition stuck to the Muslim community which remained in India.
>From the Twenties, Hindu communalists have emphasized the concept of
"Muslim tyranny". The objection to "Muslim appeasement" was raised soon
after independence. The existence of a separate set of civil laws was cited
as proof of the policy. That Muslims in India are leaderless, largely
illiterate, steeped in poverty and unhappy with the misuse of the religious
prescriptions of talaq and polygamy are considered unimportant.
The emergence ofthe BJP as a political force and the Ayodhya controversy
are a fallout of this attitude. It is not surprising that the sangh
parivar should declare and foist on people's minds the belief that Muslims
are "old enemies of Hindus".
Advani has called for a debate on Muslims and Partition, claiming it "had
become eminently desirable in the golden jubilee year of the country's
independence". There is no doubt such a national debate should be
initiated. But is Advani prepared for it?
Back
Top
|
