Author: Prafull Goradia
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: October 6, 2001
Our misguided brothers in Pakistan
do not realise that if Muslims in Pakistan can wage a war against Hindus
in Kashmir why should not Hindus, sooner or later, retaliate against Muslims
in India." This was a part of the memorandum submitted by Dr Zakir Hussain
and 13 other Muslim leaders to Dr Frank P Graham, UN Representative in
Kashmir, on August 14, 1951. That was 50 years ago. It is indeed a pity
that India has never thought of taking the help of its Muslim citizens,
most of whom can be the country's useful allies against Pakistani misdemeanour.
There is no doubt a problem. About
the only viable Muslim leadership in the country is ecclesiastical. The
luminaries, who are not maulvis, do not have sufficient following. Addressing
Muslim citizens through the ulema has its limitations. The substantive
interest of the masses lies in a peaceful life where the individual and
his family can try and prosper, to educate the children and so on. Whereas
the thrust of the ulema would be to protect and promote the influence of
Islam. The leaders of India, therefore, should find a channel of informing
and seeking cooperation of our Muslim brethren directly.
The memorandum was also signed by
Sir Sultan Ahmed, Sir Mohammed Usman, both former members of the Viceroy's
Council. The signatories included the Nawab of Chhatari, Chief Justice
of Allahabad, Sir Iqbal Ahmed, Sir Fazal Rahimtoola, AK Khwaja, TM Zarif,
BH Zaidi and Hafi-ur-Rehman, the last two were MPs. Their submission also
said: "If the Hindus are not welcome in Pakistan, how can we, in all fairness,
expect Muslims to be welcomed in India? Such a policy must inevitably,
as the past has already shown, result in the uprooting of Muslims in this
country and their migration to Pakistan, where, as it became clear last
year, they are no longer welcome, lest their influx should destroy Pakistan's
economy."
There was also a background to this
fear. Several Muslim League leaders had repeatedly emphasised in the years
preceding Partition that when the country was divided there must be an
exchange of population. Sir Feroze Khan Noon had gone to the extent of
threatening the re-enactment of the violent orgies of Chengiz Khan and
Halaqu Khan.
MA Jinnah, Khan Iftekhar Hussain
Khan of Mamdot, Pir Ilahi Bur of Sind repeatedly asked for a complete exchange
of Hindu-Muslim population as an integral corollary of Partition. The statements
of these gentlemen were reported by the Dawn on different dates in 1946,
and have been quoted by Justice Gopal Das Khosla who had been commissioned
by the Government of India to lead a fact finding mission.
This explains why the memorandum
states that: "Pakistan is incapable of providing room and livelihood to
the 40 million Muslims of India, should they migrate to Pakistan. Yet its
policy and action, if not changed soon, may well produce the result which
it dreads. Pakistan claims Kashmir, first, on the ground of the majority
of the State's people being Muslims and, second, on the ground of the State
being essential to its economy and defence. To achieve its objective, it
has been threatening to launch jihad against Kashmir in India." Is it not
remarkable that jihad was threatened more than 50 years ago? What we call
a proxy war today was declared long years ago.
The advice implicit in what Dr Hussain
wrote needs to be conveyed to the masses, especially the Muslims. This
is not easy because our masses do not always read newspapers. The khutba
read by the Imam just before the Friday prayers is about the most effective
medium for the Muslims. But here, there are two problems. One is that there
are very few mosques in India where the womenfolk are admitted. This makes
the khutba communication confined to the men who attend the Friday prayers.
The others including the womenfolk have to depend on hearsay.
The other great problem is that
the Imam is a part of the community of alims or ulema. He therefore conveys
what is consistent with the ecclesiastical policy whose central thrust
is the preservation of pristine Islam and not necessarily the welfare of
the masses. Take, for example, the advice given by the ulema to the masses
especially after the Rebellion of 1857. It was to shun English education
and avoid western science. Later in the century, Sir Syed Ahmad Khan made
yeoman's efforts to persuade the Muslim intelligentsia into ignoring this
advice and taking to Western studies. As part of his efforts, he founded,
what is now called, the AMU; he insisted that the head of the teaching
institution should be British so that English and science get the emphasis
that was needed.
Sir Syed did his best but he was
only partly successful. The result has been the widespread Muslim complaint
that they are backward and that therefore they need special consideration
by employers. The policy, in the view of the ulemas, helped their religion.
Although an objective perception would be that Islam has a powerful faith,
Prophet Muhammad's message should run deep into the Muslim heart regardless
of ecclesiastical intervention.
While concluding the memorandum,
Dr Zakir Hussain and his friends wrote: "We should, therefore, like to
impress upon you with all the emphasis at our command that Pakistan's policy
towards Kashmir is fraught with the gravest peril to the 40 million Muslims
of India."
