 |
||
|
||
|
||
The Jamaat-e-Islami leader Syed Ali Shah Gilani is exhorting Indian
Muslims to join-Jihad in Kashmir. He has been 'warning' Indian
Muslims that if they fail to do so, they may one day he
'answerable'. To whom they would be answerable Gilani has
mercifully left unsaid. He has also charged Indian Muslims of
living in fear. Fear of whom? That, too, has been left unsaid.
Gilani has been accustomed to saying such outrageous things for a
long time and one presumes that the Indian Muslim community has
become wise to the communal poison Gilani pours out every now and
then. But it would seem that he is not the only one to indulge in
such folly. Early in March another vicious character, Dr. Rashid
Shaz of the Milli Parliament was busy stirring communal passion,
this time in Hubli, in Karnataka. When last January the two-day
conclave of the Milli Parliament ended in a fiasco in Patna it was
hoped that would see the end of it. Apparently not. In Hubli the
Milli Parliament picked up from where it had left in its Patna
session to urge Muslims to "protect" their legitimate rights. It
is not clear what these "legitimate rights" are or how the
government has infringed upon them. On the Shah Banoo affair the
government bent backward to appease orthodox Muslims. It was a
shameless and entirely unnecessary surrender to Islamic
fundamentalism. But apparently the Milli Parliament has other
ideas. At Hubli it went on to describe the past fifty years as
"the lost years" for the Indian Muslims. They are certainly "lost
years" but not the way Dr. Shaz is insinuating. In Patna, the
Milli Parliament had passed what it called a Muslim political bill.
In Hubli it has gone a step further to release what it has been
pleased to call a Muslim manifesto. It bodes ill for the future.
The Muslim community should be warned. The Milli Parliament spells
trouble for them. According to this Parliament, it is absolutely
forbidden (haram) for Muslims to join any political party which
does not share the Islamic agenda of Khilafa. Presumably Dr. Shaz
wants every Muslim to join a new Muslim Party that he is proposing
to inaugurate. One could dismiss this as the lunatic outpourings
of a diseased mind, but when Jinnah re-invented the Muslim League
many thought that he would not succeed. It is true that 1997 is
not 1937; it is equally, true that in 1997 there is no third party,
like the British, to tilt the scales in favour of the League. But
in these matters one can never be too careful. Dr. Shaz is no
Mohammad Ali Jinnah. But there is enough communal tinder for him
to set fire and India has enough enemies - not counting the
Pakistani Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) - who do not wish it
well and who may only be too anxious to finance this man. The
government is warned. It is not that there are not enough Muslim
intellectuals to challenge the Gilanis and the Shazs. Writing in
The Hindustan Times Sultan Shahin has strongly condemned Gilani.
Similarly, writing in Asian Age Parwez Hafeez has plainly said that
"Dr. Shah is no saviour of the community" and that "all his lofty
claims of giving the much-needed direction to the Muslims is a lot
of hot air". Which is exactly what it is. But so was Jinnah's
demand for Pakistan "a lot of hot air". The tragedy is that he got
away with it.
When Dr. Rashid Shaz noted in Hubli that the past 50 years have
been "lost years" for Indian Muslims he had a point there. In these
fifty years Indian Muslims could have made sensational progress had
they only decided to join the mainstream. The usual excuse given
for their backwardness is that their natural leaders from among
their co-religionists had gone to Pakistan leaving them leaderless.
That is only partly true. The larger truth is that having
supported the formation of Pakistan they did not know how to adjust
themselves to the reality that was India. It is a manifest lie to
suggest that the vast majority of Muslims did not want Pakistan.
The thousands who attended Muslim League rallies plainly were
supportive of the idea. Their moment of truth arrived when Pakistan
actually came into existence. In most Indian eyes the Muslims were
suspect. The Muslims internalised that suspicion and could never
quite come out of it. To lay that at the doors of other Indians is
not only unfair but unjust.
And yet it is also true that in the past fifty years, relatively
speaking, Indian Muslims have done well and prospered. Prawez
Hafeez has testified that "almost everywhere the economic and
social conditions of this massive minority have improved". Indeed
Muslims in India are far better off than their compatriots who went
over to Pakistan and are today paying with their lives for their
folly. In which Muslim country have minorities risen in every
department of life? India has had at least two Muslim Presidents
and Justice Hidayatullah, vice-President has also acted as
President. In the field of journalism we have the much-respectived
M. J. Akbar; Salman Haidar is our Foreign Secretary, trusted with
every political secret. Mohammad Azharuddin has served as captain
of our cricket team; our most distinguished defence scientist is
Abdul Kalam. In the world of cinema we have a host of Muslim stars
who, unlike Dilip Kumar who assumed a Hindu name, (lest his Muslim
heritage come in the way of his rise to stardom,) have made no
attempt to hide the fact that they are Muslims. Hindu Indians
couldn't care less what a man's religion is so long as he is
Indian. How many Hindu Azharuddins, M. J. Akbars, Shah Rukh Khans
or Ahmadis are there in Pakistan? Or for that matter in Bangla
Desh, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq or any Islamic country, These countries
should hang their heads in shame for the treatment of their
minorities. More, they should bow respectfully before India which
for all its faults can have a Muslim as the Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court, a Muslim as Foreign Secretary, a Muslim as its
Defence Scientist, a Muslim as a leading opinion maker and Muslims
in every walk of life. India would again have a clean record in
terms of law and order, but it is a miracle that there are so few
communal riots. If there have been some, they may readily be
attributed to the machinations of the likes of Syed Gilani and Dr.
Shaz. Such vermin are to be found, unfortunately in the Muslim
community, to foment trouble where there was none before. This
does not mean that there aren't Hindu trouble makers. But
considering the vastness and variety of this country their numbers
are significantly small.
Following the partition of India in 1947 Muslims largely decided to
vote Congress to make recompense for their having supported the
Muslim League and the division of the country. It served the
Congress quite well. For Muslims in post-1947 India to have
insisted in continuing with the discredited Muslim League would
have been suicidal though the League, as a party, exists in Kerala.
What was foolish in 1947 would be just as foolish in 1997, fifty
years later Nothing would be more disastrous for the Muslim
community than for it to follow the lead offered by Dr. Rashid
Shaz. Not only would it alienate Muslims from the political
mainstream, it would once again destroy the essential unity of
India.
Why have the Muslims been alienated from the Congress? The stock
answer is that the Congress did not prevent the 'destruction' of
the Babri Masjid. But few have bothered to give the Ram Janmabhoomi
agitation the positive attention it deserved. And for that we have
to blame not the Congress but the "secularists" in every party.
The Babri Masjid has been a disputed territory for decades. It
cannot be denied that over the centuries successive Islamic rulers
have desecrated temples and often built masjids on their sites.
There are proven records that over 3,000 temples have been
destroyed - a fact that is not under dispute. It so happens that
the Babri Masjid has the notoriety of having been built over a
temple dedicated to Shri Ram. Here was a chance for the Muslim
public to rise to greatness, to be gracious, towards a majority
community which, in the past, has been banned. By graciously
conceding to the Hindus a site allegedly the birthplace of Sri Ram,
the Muslims would have won the undying friendship and gratitude of
all Hindus. The Muslims had little to lose. In any event, the
Babri Masjid has long been in disuse. One gesture of goodwill would
have won for the entire Muslim community something more precious
than mere friendship. It would have touched the core of the Hindu
heart. But the Muslim leadership decided to take a legal stand and
it dared the majority community to do its worst. The challenge was
accepted. It did credit neither to the Hindus nor to the Muslims
who had been egged on by the secularists not to give in to the BJP
and the VHP. There is a time to fight and there is a time to be
gracious. On the issue of the Babri Masjid, the Muslims could have
easily afforded to be gracious. This they failed to be.
Retribution was swift and painful to all parties. The entire
country suffered. If, instead of standing on izzat the Muslim
leadership had shown some magnanimity it would have been a great
day for India. An opportunity was missed.
The vast majority of Hindus want to march into the future hand in
hand with their Muslim brethren. That hand should be clasped. To
form a separate Muslim party is to show that Muslim Indians do not
want to be part of the country but insist on being separate. It
would be considered a slap on the face of non-Muslims. Forming a
separate Muslim party would be counter-productive. And may it be
fully understood: it would, in the end, hurt Muslims most. After
the British took over the country, the Muslims went into their
shell. If again they want to get back into their shell, it is their
business. But then they would have no reason to complain if the
rest of the country treats them as unwanted. The choice is for
Muslims to make. Others can't make it for them. Contemplating mass
suicide is not the best way to make progress.
|
||
|
||
|
||