Author: Sandhya Jain
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 20, 2001
Even by the deplorable standards
of public discourse in India, the cloying communalism of leftist Muslim
academics and the utter falsehoods being propagated by their secular comrades
are breathtaking. In the two months since the apocalyptic attack on the
symbols of American military and economic power, the worldwide Islamic
intellectual industry and its dhimmi clientele has been overactive trying
to ensure that the confrontation with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden is
not expanded into a drive against all terrorist organizations and nations
harbouring them.
The nationalist consensus in India,
reiterated by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, is that the war against
terrorism must be broadened beyond "certain symbols or symptoms," and include
sanctions on countries sheltering terrorist groups. An Indian success in
this regard (still possible given the growing international realization
that Islamic terrorism may escalate as Taliban crumbles), could find Pakistan
in the dock. For India, there is an urgency in this regard as over thirty
thousand people have died in Kashmir alone as a result of the activities
of Pak-sponsored insurgents in the past twelve years, and the rest of the
country is a virtual tinderbox on account of the ISI's deep penetration
upto Kerala.
As any student of statecraft would
know, the nationalist view is not a 'Hindu' vanity; it could legitimately
be formulated by any state in India's place. Yet Muslim intellectuals have
never been concerned with India's anxieties in this regard. Nor have they
attempted in the past fifty years, and especially in the last decade as
Hindus tried to shake off the successive oppressions of three millennarian
traditions (Islam, Christian colonialism and Communism/Nehruvian socialism),
to define their identity and aspirations in terms of this country and its
people.
Even in the early years after Partition
when the Muslim community was largely quietist, it secured a large measure
of separatism as the price of electoral support to the Congress. Muslim
intellectuals never introspected if this was healthy for the community;
their role was of secular advocates for the community's orthodox and sectarian
preferences. The growing Hindu discomfort with the Muslim insistence on
living in secular India as a state-within-a-state only cemented the Muslim-Left
alliance which, given its near-totalitarian domination of the media and
academia, virtually drove the voice of the majority into the wilderness.
As Dr. Koenraad Elst and other western observers have noted, Hindus are
the only people denied the right of narration and representation in the
country's intellectual fora as Indian secularism has an extremely sectarian
connotation.
Given this ground reality, it is
unacceptable when Muslim academics and their anti-Hindu comrades use the
media to lash out at invisible critics on the specious plea that they are
being 'forced' to condemn Pakistan and Taliban to prove their loyalty to
the country, post-September 11. One writer claims India's twelve million
Muslims are not a monolith as they speak different languages, follow diverse
customs, vote for assorted parties, and because "powerful pluralist visions
shape Muslim communities."
He does not explain these pluralist
visions, but paradoxically urges us to accept the "emergence of a trans-national
community" as a new phenomenon in the Muslim world. He does not say how
this is different from the familiar ummah, but claims that it draws upon
"the range of contemporary experiences not from one but different locations.
Why, they ask, are their co-religionists victimised in Bosnia, Somalia,
Chechnya, Palestine, and Iraq? These sites confirm them in the belief that
something is fundamentally wrong with the world they live in. It is this
contemporary reality, rather than any Islamic doctrine, which contributes
to the collective reaction." Concluding airily that "political heroes are
scarcely remembered.the martyrs, fighting on behalf of the oppressed souls,
form part of a nation's memory," he demands to know if he passes the loyalty
test allegedly put to him with tiresome regularity.
After brazenly affirming that the
community has a 'national memory' unrelated to its Indian environment,
Muslim spokespersons should realize that they are upholding an undifferentiated
ummah with in-built hostility towards other faiths, cultures and civilizations.
It may be noted that so-called liberal Muslims have never made common cause
with progressive Hindus on any issue of national, or even sectarian, importance.
There is no logical reason why modern educated Muslims should insist on
a separate personal law that is demeaning to women, rather than a common
civil code, under which Hindus have made great advances. Their commitment
to Article 370 is inexplicable even in terms of the interests of Kashmiri
Muslims. Similarly, their lack of interest in modern education for the
rank and file of the community, which has been abandoned at the gates of
madrasas, is a sad commentary on their notion of communal empowerment.
Muslim intellectuals have only reinforced
separatism to the detriment of national unity. This is why fear of a 'second
partition' always lurks below the surface of the Hindu psyche, and why
aggressive illegal immigrations into Assam, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh
and other states cause anxiety among Hindus.
Muslim intellectuals must explain
why they do not share this concern. If there is a separate, pluralistic
Islamic community in every country, why is it unable to bond with fellow
countrymen on critical national issues? Since most Muslim intellectuals
are also proclaimed-Marxists, why are they advocates of communal orthodoxy,
when logically they should be free of the sectarian pull of faith (religion
being the opium of the masses)? Hindu Marxists, after all, are avid Hindu-baiters.
Then, there are the activities of
Pak-funded fundamentalists, in which hundreds have died. Some Muslim intellectuals
have gained personal mileage attacking the Shahi Imam of Jama Masjid. But
there has been studied silence when non-Indian Muslims and other fanatics
have targeted India. In August 2000, Osama bin Laden said, "waging jihad
against India is an Islamic duty of the Muslim world. Kashmir issue cannot
be resolved by any means other than jihad." In September 2000, Harkat ul
Mujahideen general secretary Fazlur Rehman Khalil averred, "we are fighting
not only for Kashmir but to hoist our flag in New Delhi. Our war will continue
till restoration of Muslim rule in India" (Pioneer, 19 November 2001).
Yet Muslim intellectuals have been
quick to make nasty digs at the proposed Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance
(POTO), which can effectively deal with such criminals. They have given
communal colour to even organized crime, but do not want to invoke Islamic
criminal law (Sharia) against it. This is not true of other communities.
In recent times, Jains have figured among high-profile offenders detained
by the law (Bharat Shah, Harshad Mehta), but the community has not felt
obligated to defend them on a sectarian basis.
Above all, Muslim intellectuals
must explain their shameful silence in the face of continuing atrocities
against Hindus in Bangladesh, when even Begum Khaleda Zia has admitted
that they are still taking place. Muslim leaders should recognize that
Indian society has lost patience with Islamic fundamentalism, and that
the tide is turning internationally as well. Within the United States,
despite politically correct noises by the White House, conservative strategists
are reportedly insisting that Islam is hell-bent on destroying the west
and the civilization of the non-believer (infidel). Morgan Norvel, a US
Marine and author of a major work on Islamic terror, bluntly states, "it
is a religious war - it is a war of Islam against us." It is for Muslims
to prove that this is not so.
