 |
||
|
||
|
||
The Jamaat-e-Islami leader Syed Ali Shah Gilani has exhorted Indian
Muslims to join "jihad" in Kashmir. Participating in the
anti-nationalism campaign organised by the Students Islamic
Movement of India (SIMI), Syed Gilani has regretted that the Muslim
ummah (community) was indifferent to the jihad in Kashmir. Warning
that Indian Muslims would one day be answerable for their apathy
over Kashmir, he opined that they were not supporting jihad out of-
fear. The Jamaat parivar is supporting this campaign
enthusiastically, and as the professional Muslim leadership has
maintained total silence, one may safely assume that it is at least
in partial agreement with this appraisal, if not with the
exhortation to support jihad.
The Muslim community, however, has rejected the campaign with the
disdain it deserves. And not without reason. A group of Muslims
living in a Muslim-majority area would, one assumes, feel more
secure and better able to cope with the inevitable stresses and
strains of living in a democratic polity as a minority. This group
is seeking to secede from a country inhabited by Muslims at least
twenty times its own population, calls this political struggle a
religious endeavour and expects the Muslims from the whole country
to support this so-called jihad. This is preposterous. Seceding
from India and joining Pakistan simply means a country inhabited by
130 million Muslims and joining one with 100 million Muslims.
Of course, the two situations are not identical. Professional
Muslim leaders like Syed Shahabuddin say that Indian Muslims are
victims of political genocide and have been virtually
disenfranchised as they have very little representation in either
the Central or State legislatures. Even if one agrees with him for
the sake of argument, this situation is not very different from the
problems facing Indian Muslim migrants to Pakistan. Indeed, the
Muhajirs are not just faced with political genocide, they are
facing genocide, just as the Bengalis in East Pakistan once did.
The Muhajirs, if not the Sindhis and Pakhtoons, would love to
secede from Pakistan and join India. They know they won't be
welcome in India; still, they are virtually running a secessionist
movement. But they don't call it jihad. Nor did the Bengalis. They
fought a civil war against Pakistan. A war of liberation. They are
a free, sovereign country now. But they didn't call themselves
Mujahids.
Indian Muslims, in their wisdom, or out of fear, as Syed Gilani
taunts us, have decided to put their faith in the ballot box. To
observers without the blinkered vision of the former Muslim
leadership, they would appear to be in a commanding position
politically. They are able, of course, with the help of fellow
citizens, to change governments at will. The Congress party which
ruled India for almost half a century thinks it has been demolished
by the anger of Muslims who are not in a mood to forgive the
demolition of Babri masjid.
Yes, this command performance has not brought any corresponding
political or economic benefit. But things are changing. And not for
Muslims alone. Democracy is a process of slow and peaceful change.
We have chosen this path deliberately. Our democracy has its
flaws. The Muslims would be the first to acknowledge that. The
system of democracy has flaws. The whole world knows that. But
there is no better option. Our faith remains unshaken.
In any case the problems Muslims face are of a political nature.
Even the seemingly religious dispute over Babri masjid was
essentially a political problem. The problem arose during the Nehru
era. Congress politicians are adapt at turning national disasters
into political opportunities. But Nehru could not put this problem
to any immediate political use. He was not facing any political
challenge from any quarter in 1949. A consummate politician, who
had just turned the disastrous two-nation theory into an
opportunity to get rid of Jinnah and millions of potential
trouble-makers with the clout to demand a share in power, naturally
saved this problem for some future use.
Even the seemingly religious problem of Babri masjid was
essentially a political problem. Our religion is safe in India.
It is certainly safer than in Pakistan. We may have been butchered
once during a prayer inside a mosque - at Moradabad in 1980 during
V. P. Singh's rule as Chief Minister - but in Pakistan this is
virtually routine. That the Muslim of Kashmir would want to leave
India and join Pakistan in order to safeguard their religion is
absurd What problem could they possibly have living as they are in
a Muslim-majority area if other Muslims have no problems on this
score despite their minority status in all parts of the country?
Kashmiri Muslims do face a problem, however, a special problem,
different from the problem, different from the problems other
Indian Muslims face. Indian democracy would give them anything but
democracy. Nehru explained his Policy succinctly in a conversation
with well-known socialist leader and political commentator Balraj
Puri: "We are there (in Kashmir) at the point of the bayonet. Till
things improve morality and democracy can wait." And, of course,
Kashmiri Muslims are still waiting for Indian morality and
democracy to enter the valley.
Our ancient civilisation humanity, secularism. decency, morality
and democracy are the strongest cards we have that distinguish us
from, say, Pakistan. It is only by extending the reach of these
values to the Kashmir valley that we can integrate that estranged
land and its people in our national mainstream. We have not been
able to and will never be able to do that by merely foisting our
laws and statutes or political agents on those people whether we do
that through brutality or chicanery.
So the Muslims of Kashmir do have a problem. But this is a
political problem, calling for political action and not Holy War.
Let us not demean the concept of jihad. There is a good description
of Jihad fi sabeelillah (Jihad in the cause of Allah) in Sura 9,
verse 20 of the Holy Quran. Explaining this verse, the authorised
Saudi translation says: "It (Jihad) may require fighting in Allah's
cause, as a form of self-sacrifice. But its essence consists in
(1) a true and sincere Faith which so fixes its gaze on Allah that
all selfish or worldly motives seem paltry and fade away, and (2)
an earnest and ceaseless activity, involving the sacrifice (if need
be) of life, person or property, in the service of Allah. Mere
brutal fighting is opposed to the whole spirit of Jihad, while the
sincere scholar's pen or preacher's voice. or wealthy man's
contributions may be the most valuable forms of Jihad.
Explaining another Quranic advice, (Sura 4: verse 29) wala taqtolu
anfosakum, (nor kill or destroy yourselves) and putting it in its
proper perspective, it says: "But there is a more general meaning
also: we must be careful of our own and other people's lives. We
must commit no violence. This is the opposite of 'trade and traffic
by mutual goodwill' (that the Holy Quran asks the Muslims to pursue
in an accompanying verse). Our violence to out own brethren is
particularly preposterous, seeing that Allah has loved and showered
His mercies on us and all His creatures."
One can quote a number of verses underlining the same message.
Jihad is made in the Cause of Allah. Can a Kashmiri Muslim truly
put his hand on his heart and say that his faith, Islam, is in
danger of annihilation in this country? Even that his faith would
be better protected in the lap of the mafia that rules Pakistan?
Have they forgotten the experience of East Pakistan? Don't they
know how very disenchanted with Pakistan are their own brothers
across the Line of Control? Do they know why there is not even a
whimper of protest against Islamabad in the PoK despite a total
disillusionment?
Let me tell them this is merely because the Pakistani Kashmiris
dare not do so in view of their experiences starting right from
early fifties that saw the Hungama-e-Polandari in which the Sudhans
fought against the Pakistan Army. Also because they have never
enjoyed any political rights ever. If a section of Kashmiri youth
decided to take on the might of a major world-level military power
like India, this was not only an expression of disillusionment with
Indian democracy; it was also an expression of faith in Indian
civilisation and democracy, a faith that India would treat them and
especially the non-combatants fairly. That India did not understand
this, does not understand this, is a different matter. But
informed Kashmiris do realise that in a similar situation the
so-called Islamic Army of Pakistan would have been much more
brutal, much more callous.
Islamic armies in the past were known for their humanity. Islam
would not have spread like wildfire as it did if they were not. But
do the Kashmiris really believe that Pakistan is an Islamic state?
I know many of them who know better. In fact I know even Syed Ali
Shah Gilani knows what Pakistan is like. And this makes it
particularly difficult for me to understand why would he want
Kashmiris to become a part of Pakistan, why would he talk of Islam
in danger, need for Jihad against India, and advise even other
Indian Muslims to join Jihad if they wanted to please God. Other
Indian Muslims would certainly love to help their Kashmir; brothers
and sisters. But you cannot come and say, we have been trying to
commit mass suicide, with appreciable success so far, would you
kindly help and also join us. This won't do. But, if Syed Gilani
were to say, we want to change our suicidal course, however, we
have difficulty dealing with India, would you try and help, I am
sure the answer would be an enthusiastic yes.
|
||
|
||
|
||