 |
|
|
An interesting fallout of Pakistan’s subversive activities against this country is the peculiar leverage they provide to Indian Muslims to make demands on the Indian state. Each fresh outrage by Pakistan evokes a plethora of statements by self-styled Muslim leaders on the need to redress minority grievances, as though the aim of the Pakistani aggression was to ‘avenge’ the poor treatment of minorities in this country. Strangely, this logic is echoed by significant sections of our secular elite. Indeed, the malady has become so pervasive that even the BJP appears to have succumbed to it. In the immediate aftermath of the recent hijacking crisis, a member of the Council of Ministers appeared on a private TV channel to advocate the need to urgently attend to “a section of our society" to prevent it from being misled or misguided by our neighbour on the west.
There is a dangerous assumption behind such responses. For one, it assumed that Pakistani activities are legitimate because of the ‘grievances’ of Indian Muslims. Secondly, Pakistan is postulated as a kind of ‘mediator’ between Indian Muslims and the Indian state. Finally, the integration of Indian Muslims into the national mainstream is viewed as conditional on the generosity of the Indian state. Such a mindset holds that until Indian Muslims are satiated with concessions, Pakistan will have a fertile breeding ground for mischief.
Our experience, however, shows that there is a case for re-examining these assumptions. In fact, the prime cause of the non-integration of Indian Muslim in the national mainstream has to be traced to the community itself. In the immediate aftermath of Partition, Indian Muslims asked to be left alone while they contemplated the division of their community and their prospects under a non-Muslim dispensation. But even in those early days they still rallied behind their own particular pot organisations wherever feasible as in Kerala, where the Muslim league was still a force to reckon with.
The preservation of its separate identity, in fact, became a major obsession of the community and was a crucial determinant of its alliance with the Congress, Pan, In return for electoral support the Congress, which had once opposed the two-nation theory; now tamely accepted the Muslim position on Personal law, Aligarh Muslim University, Urdu, and Art 370. But the point to note here is not the Congress surrender but the Muslim determination to stay aloof.
Before it is said that minorities are entitled under the Indian constitution to preserve the distinctive features of their heritage it would be instructive to compare the Muslim stance with that of other communities. Muslims were not alone in possessing their own language and way of life. Pre-modern India had countless such ‘little Communities’. In UP and Bihar alone, the spoken dialect was said to change every fifty miles. There was similar variety in patterns of daily living. But when the process of modernisation began, large categories superimposed themselves on older structures. Yet the local and the particular were not wholly uprooted in the inexorable march of modernisation; rather the two began to co-exist in a new equilibrium. The Bhojpuri-speaking Bihari additionally became a skilled conversationalist in Hindi, while Madhubani paintings moved out of their village setting to the national and international art arena.
The point is that while preserving their little worlds, non-Muslim communities in the subcontinent acknowledged the desirability of modernisation and the all-India categories it brought in its wake. They, thus, simultaneously became integrated into, as well as constituents of, the national mainstream. Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, by contrast, have consciously and willingly resisted the twin forces of modernisation and assimilation.
While the rest of the society has turned its back on denominational educational institutions, Indian Muslims continue to repose faith in madrassa education, precisely because it keeps them apart from fellow citizens. It is no secret that the instructions imparted in these institutions are not intended to produce proud Indians. On the contrary, they ensure that a religion-dominated thought process implants itself in the minds of the recipients. And for this reason alone, the community makes sure that such institutions the all-India categories it brought in its wake. They, thus, simultaneously became integrated into, as well as constituents of, the national mainstream. Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, by contrast, have consciously and willingly resisted the twin forces of modernisation and assimilation.
While the rest of the society has turned its back on denominational educational institutions, Indian Muslims continue to repose faith in madrassa education, precisely because it keeps them apart from fellow citizens. It is no secret that the instructions imparted in these institutions are not intended to produce proud Indians. On the contrary, they ensure that a religion-dominated thought process implants itself in the minds of the recipients. And for this reason alone, the community makes sure that such institutions continue to proliferate.
Likewise, Muslims have rejected the egalitarian and humane dimensions of modern Indian judicial law in a bid to mark themselves off from the rest. Indeed, they have refused to partake of the best free India has on offer in myriad fields, barring one. They have zeroed in on the political process and concentrated their energies there in a bid to extract the maximum mileage for themselves. They have had no compunctions in asking for reservations for Dalit Muslims, OBC Muslims, Muslim women and, if possible, for all Muslim Indians, even as they feign ignorance of the responsibilities of parliamentary democracy.
Herein lies the paradox of the Muslim position - a determination to rebuff the overtures modern Indian apparatuses while simultaneously nurturing manifold grievances against them. But surely after five decades of independence, it is time to call a spade a spade. The rest of India needs to know in what manner it has hindered or hampered the Muslim march towards national integration. Or is it to conclude that, given the Muslim preoccupation with power equations, this is a goal destined to remain in the realm of the impossible?
Muslim leaders who turn up with unfailing regularity in moments of crisis to bargain on behalf on their community, are now obliged to set the record straight on a number of counts. They owe the country an explanation on the Muslim stand on issues of national concern.
What, for instance, are the salient features of the Islam Indian Muslims follow in this day and age? Is it compatible with Islamic fundamentalism as prevalent in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Do Indian Muslims view the age-old concept of jehad as still worthy of their allegiance? Do they regard national boundaries as sacrosanct? Do they endorse the fact of Muslim nationals of one country fighting for the rights (sic) of Muslims in another country? Do they believe that umma and nationalism can coexist?
Coming specially to India, do Indian Muslims accept democracy, the one-man one-vote principle, which empowers each citizen with an equal say in government formation, or do they dismiss it as a ploy that ensures Hindu domination in the political process? What is their concept of political equality? Has it, in their view, been implemented in the state of Jammu & Kashmir? Is the talk of injustice in Kashmir fair, given that representative institutions in that state are wholly in the hands of its Muslim citizens? Do Indian Muslims acknowledge the fact that the Indian state has pumped hundreds of thousands of crores into that troubled paradise to a point where it causes heartburn to other states? In their view, are Pandits of the Valley also rightful claimants to the state? Further, is the destruction of temples in Kashmir an act of sacrilege, or in conformity with the tenets of their faith? Will Indian Muslims press for the return of Kashmiri Pandits and the reconstruction of their temples? Finally, has the community debated within itself on the need to meet the Indian nation halfway? If yes, what concrete steps does it propose to take to end its self-imposed isolation?
Muslim leaders who have
stepped forward to bargain for their community need to tell the country
what the latter has authorised them to offer in exchange. If this is to
be a moment of truth a word of advise would not be out of place - ask not,
dear brothers, only what your country can do for you, ask also what you
can do for it.
This archive was generated by (modified version of) hypermail.pl 1.00
|
|
|