 |
||
|
||
|
||
"Unfortunately, Indian Muslims have allowed themselves to be used as a scapegoat; they should play their cards better if they do not wish to be misunderstood and projected as an obstacle to national integration." Dr. Rafiq Zacharia in 'Islam: Reform and Renewal', Seminar 416, April 1994.
I hope Dr Zacharia believes in what he writes. He is a lovely man, a treat to listen to. With an extraordinary grasp of history he makes his point sink into his listeners or rather readers mind. Over the years I have enjoyed reading his books and numerous articles. I interviewed him in his Cuffe Parade home in 1989 while collecting material for my BBC series on Jawahrlal Nehru.
In his memorable discourse on Nehruvian history he made a pointed reference to one of Nehru's arguments that communalism of majority is more dangerous than the communalism of minority, because it may command the resources of the state.
I argued that all communalism was bad. He seemed to agree, only tactically. His condemnation of Muslim communalism wasn't as severe as that of Hindu communalism. It made me worried.
Recently, when he wrote an article 'What is Muslim about Kalam?' (Asian Age, 19 July) my worries, dormant by now, were revived again. I felt vindicated, albeit a very uncomfortable vindication. Why can't this giant intellectual, who has written so much on wide and varied subjects like Islam, India, Nehru, and secularism, think beyond conservative Islam?
President Kalam has a scientific temperament. He has read Islam as well as other religions. Certainly, he doesn't fit into the conservative mould that Dr. Zacharia thinks is essential for everyone of those born in a Muslim family. And that's why he questioned: What's Muslim about Kalam?
Interestingly, the Asian Age, perhaps embarrassed, removed the article from its web site in a couple of days. And my time-consuming googleing didn't yield any result.
But more disturbing was an article written by another Muslim leader and one of the most articulate critics of Hindu fundamentalism, Sayed Shahbuddin in the Indian Express: 'Why no Muslim is cheering on Kalam'.
He blamed Kalam of "deliberately" disassociating himself with "any Muslim cause." Though he didn't define what is a Muslim cause. But we all know from his writings and numerous TV and radio appearances that his Muslim cause is limited to the restoration of Babri mosque, sending kids to madarsas and not to the modern educational institutions and arguing in favour of never-changing Muslim personal law. That's what we have often seen him passionately arguing, advocating, shouting and even fighting on TV and radio programmes. In this article he said that Kalam does not connect himself with the Muslim community and "this is serious and unforgivable lacuna."
Criticism is our democratic right. Having an opinion, even a distorted one, is every citizen's privilege. But when the leading lights of a community indulge in smear talk they should be questioned, of course democratically. Let's see what Shahbuddin wrote further: "Vajpayee has nominated not an Indian Muslim, or even a Muslim Indian, but a 'Mohammadi Hindu', a phrase he claimed to have borrowed from Murali Manohar Joshi.
According to Shahbuddin, Kalam has become "an exceptionally committed conductor for Sangh Parivar's orchestra of jingoism and chauvinism."
Kalam has worked in close association with six Indian prime ministers and has been the scientific adviser to some of them. But Shahbuddin writes: "Politically, Kalam is a blank page, a babe in the woods."
Frankly speaking, India's political diary so far has been full of smudged writings about mutual suspicion. India needs a blank page, a clean slate, to chronicle the vision of people like Kalam. Since his nomination for the highest office Kalam has talked about the unity of mind; advocated the empowerment of people; told us not to be petty and small; counselled us not to be afraid of change; expected us to believe in future. He has exhorted us to smile and dream.
Contrary to all this Shahbuddin concludes: "No reputed Muslim organisation, no institution of eminence, no community leader of significance has welcomed his nomination."
I am sure it's not true. I am sure millions of Indian Muslims have taken enormous pride in what Avil Pakir Jainulabdeen Abdul Kalam has achieved. A poor and backward Muslim child rising to become a top student, a top scientist, a top technocrat, the supreme commander of India's armed forces and the head of the Republic of India and above all a gem of a human being who respects all religions. This is an extraordinary journey from a tiny fishing hamlet to the presidential palace.
If any one in India, whether Hindu or Muslim, could follow the path Kalam has trodden and even achieve a fraction of what Kalam has accomplished, we would be looking at a developed nation enjoying unparalleled peace and progress and social harmony.
India's 12th President represents
hope for Hindu-Muslim understanding. People like Zacharia and Shahbuddin,
using the smoke screen of secularism, have in fact fuelled the politics
of exclusion rather than accommodation. The words and deeds of Muslim communalists
must be as vigorously and vigilantly scrutinised as that of Hindu communalists.
|
||
|
||
|
||