Author: M.V. Kamath
Publication: Organiser
Date: December 31, 2006
URL: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=163&page=12
Introduction: What Islam needs is a Kemal
Ataturk, not Wahabi extremism.
One supposes that Justice Rajendra Sachar
is well up in Indian history. If he isn't, the Home Ministry must provide
him with some text books on history which, under the UPA dispensation, cannot
lie. What would they say that is unchallengeable even by the RSS? One is that
India was ruled by Muslim rulers almost continuously in most parts of the
country for over 800 years. One would imagine that in these 800 plus years
Muslims would have become highly education conscious and have a clear advantage
over their Hindu brethren. Eight hundred years is a pretty long time to remain
backward.
True, in 1857 the British took over. Education
came to be imparted in English. There was no law barring Muslims from climbing
the new English-oriented ladder. But pride came in their way. Even prior to
1857-and we have it on the word of a former Union Minister, Arif Mohammad
Khan-in 1835, when Muslims in Calcutta (Kolkata) came to know that the government
intended to start English teaching in all schools, they submitted an application
signed by 8,000 maulvis to stop it, on the grounds that learning in English
would undermine Islam and might lead to large-scale conversion to Christianity.
Almost fifty years later, in 1882, when the British were deeply entrenched
in India, Syed Ahmad Khan appeared before the Education Commission of the
Central Legislative Council with voluminous evidence to show the almost negligible
presence of Muslims among graduates of Calcutta University. The facts presented
are shocking even now. No Muslim name appeared in the list of post-graduate
students in law.
Among 705 students appearing for bachelors'
and 235 licentiate examinations Muslims numbered eight and five respectively.
There was not a single Muslim graduate either in engineering and medicine.
In MA courses there were 5 Muslims out of 326 and in BA there were 30 out
of 1,343, poverty was not the cause. Muslims in Calcutta were relatively quite
well off then. Contrast this with what Hindus decided. When, in 1824, the
government planned to start a Sanskrit College in Calcutta, Hindu citizens,
under the leadership of Raja Rammohan Roy demanded that instead of a Sanskrit
College, they preferred an English college. They surely must have rightly
guessed which way the world was progressing. Today, England wants Indian teachers
to teach English to English children. Poor Macaulay must be turning in his
grave at the turn of events. But Muslims continue to live in another world.
Came 1947, a good ninety years after the First
War of Independence. And what happened then? The Muslim elite and Muslim entrepreneurship
ran away to Pakistan taking away with them such assets as they could command,
leaving their poor Muslim brethren in the lurch to fend for themselves. The
maulvis were still in the seats of power as even now they are. Yes, the large
majority of Muslims who stayed back were poor. But millions of Hindus, too,
were in the same class. But they knew that in order to survive they had to
send their children to school whatever the cost. Among the Muslims the old
mentality continued to persist. Let this be clear: There is no deliberate
or conscious discrimination against Muslims in any schools. The fault lies
in their leadership. They have to change the mindset.
The Sachar Committee report says that only
about 4.2 per cent of Muslim children attend madrasas. The percentage is irrelevant.
As Arif Mohammad Khan said it plainly, Muslims first must free themselves
from their clergy. The Sachar Committee report says that the situation of
Muslims is particularly grave in West Bengal, Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Assam.
West Bengal is under communist rule-the same communists who, it may be remembered,
supported the creation of Pakistan. Uttar Pradesh is all but run by Mulayam
Singh who claims undying friendship with Muslims. What is he doing for them?
And what is Muslim leadership-such as exists-doing for their own people? At
loss as to how to survive, many Muslims have apparently taken to crime.
In Maharashtra, Muslims account for 10.6 per
cent of the general population, yet they comprise 32.4 per cent of prison
inmates. For those incarcerated on terms of less, than a year, the figure
rises to 42 per cent. In Gujarat, where Muslims account for 9.06 per cent
of the population, those in jail account for 25 per cent of the jail population.
Karnataka has a general population of 12.23 per cent Muslims, but the jail
population is 17.5 per cent. There are presently 102,652 Muslims in jail and
the majority are in for ordinary crimes, not terrorism.
Apparently with less, opportunities for honest
work, many take to crime as a vocation for sheer survival. Many shortens have
been suggested for the improvement of the lot of the Muslims, such as the
creation of an Equal Opportunity Commission, modelled on the UK Race Relations
Act 1976. The point is made that it is "imperative that if the minorities
have certain perceptions of being aggrieved, all efforts should be made by
the State to find a mechanism by which these complaints could be attended
to expeditiously." Fair enough.
Nobody would grudge if Muslims received help
of all kinds, like setting up schools in areas of Muslim concentration, providing
free education especially for girls and encouraging diverse talent to grow
through financial assistance. But talent can't be implanted; it is self-generative.
Can it be that a large percentage of Muslims were converts from lower castes
that never had an education tradition and whose special talents were directed
to handicrafts, weaving, pottery, metal works and the like and whose ancestral
occupations have been nullified by technology? That might explain why it is
so difficult to draw them into a new educational structure, so totally foreign
to them, considering that Muslim students make only 1.3 percent among IIM
students and 1.7 per cent in IITs.
Has globalisation of economy hurt Muslims
more than anything else, without anybody being aware of it, much less being
in a position to help? But the issue now is not why they have fallen into
despair but what can be done to resuscitate them, not as Muslims, but as unconscious
victims of globalisation and modernisation. That they have to free themselves
of mullahs is self-evident. That they have to be taught new trades to be reliant
goes without saying. Grameen Banks may be of some help, especially for their
womenfolk-and this must be pursued. The womenfolk need to get out of their
shells, but that is a matter of years. Their mind-set has to change from Islamic
orthodoxy to contemporary competitiveness.
The roots of poverty lie not just in an out-moded
social system but in an unawareness of current possibilities that beckon the
bold. To be competitive, one has to come out of one's ghettoes and join the
mainstream. The State can-and should-help the Muslim poor but a reciprocity
in attitudes and behaviour among Muslims will strengthen the process of economic
rehabilitation. Is that too much to ask? What Islam needs is a Kemal Ataturk,
not Wahabi extremism.