Search of 'Path' for peaceful coexistence in society has all along been the endeavour of human beings. They have however differed in identification of such path, which often turned into civilisational confrontation among them.
In July 1947, just one month before partition, some of his community members of Central Constituent Assembly asked Mohammad Ali Jinnah for his advice to Indian Muslims in the new State of India. Jinnah, refrained from giving specific advice but cautioned them, " be loyal to India, concentrate on education and politics, and avoid confrontationist politics" and that "they should not seek to ride two horses" (The Muslims in India by A.G.Noorani, OXFORD, 2003, page3 and 5). Jinnah had mobilised the Indian Muslims for creation of Pakistan on the basis of two-nation theory. But he did not explain as to how the Muslims who were responsible for truncation of united India could co-exist with another nation under a Hindu-majority secular and democratic State.
Noorani has equated the fear psychosis of Indian Muslims after partition with their mental condition after the collapse of Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. In fact a similar observation was already made by Syed Abid Hussain, a former Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia in his book ''The Destiny of Indian Muslims' as far back as in 1965. He said,
"The revolutionary changes of 1947 had induced in the minds of the generality of Indian Muslims a similar state of despair, frustration and fear as the growing domination of British Government and western culture had done in the beginning of the nineteenth century"(Organiser dated August 17, 2003).
In 1857 while Muslims had no option but to live under colonial rule, in 1947 they had no such compulsions. They had two options either to integrate with the secular and democratic current of national mainstream as equal citizens, or to go to Pakistan, which they themselves had created. They chose the former course voluntarily, but something went wrong which we will examine shortly..
Syed Abid Husain was quite honest when he wrote, in 1965
"there has been a re-emergence of Muslim communalism". "This is, as a matter of fact the same movement of religious communalism which had started shortly before 1947, had temporarily subsided after partition and is now coming to the surface again. It is sponsored by a small section of religious leaders but is becoming fairly popular among the middle class and to some extent among students" (Ibid).
In 1972, a noted Muslim writer was frank enough to admit. when he spoke this bitter truth as early as in 1972. He said:
"Leaving aside a small section of Indian Muslims, the majority is by no means 'secular' (Islam in Secular India by Mushir-ul-Haq, 1972 page1). "Indian Muslims also accepted the idea of a secular state because they feared that the alternative would be a 'Hindu state' (Ibid.).
Syed Shahabuddin, with his distinguished educational an administrative career and presently also a member of All India Muslim Personal Law Board in an editorial of the monthly magazine entitled 'Muslim India' observed:
"For a Muslim, at the personal level, his religious identity is supreme, rising above race, language, geography or political jurisdiction. …. No one has authority to change it" (The Saffron Wave by Thomas Blom Hansen, 1999, page 152).
Shahabuddin is not an Ulama. He was a topper in MSC from Patna University. He successfully competed in the Indian Administrative Service and was in Government of secular India for long.
Shahabuddin has a democratic right in secular India and hence he may be proud of his observation but the message that he sent to his community "Muslim first and the rest later" could give rise to a different interpretation in secular India.
Ironically, no political party is prepared to ask the Muslims to separate their religion from politics though one could argue that such tendencies do surface once a while in other religions also..
The terms democracy and secularism as the modern world understands today do not approve the authority of any religion with temporal power. A number of Islamic states interpreted Islam befitting their national interests but very few Muslim leaders of India ever made any compromise over religious issues, though they had succumbed to such compromise during British regime, that had imposed number of administrative changes, which hardly had any Islamic sanction.
Ever since the partition of Indian subcontinent in August 1947 the problem of co- existence between the two major communities continued to surface. The communal conflict, which the Indian society inherited from the convulsive and turbulent course of a thousand- year of history, never showed any symptom of its resolution. So long Muslims were the rulers of this country, their co-religionists remained assertive and had no social problem in their socialisation with Hindus, who were at receiving end. But once they realised that Hindus will dominate in power structure under democratic set-up due to their larger numerical strength, they started isolating themselves from the Hindu-majority Indian society. Historically, Muslims began to isolate themselves from the rest of India's population, the day they got the status of separate electorates in 1909. By losing their right to vote equally with rest of Indian population, they separated themselves from Indian society.
Following developments after partition show that Muslims tried to retain their separate identity and remained only as a demanding social group:
* Revival of Indian Union Muslim League in December 1947 as new incarnation of All India Muslim League;
* Emphasis on Islam-centric education in stead of secular and modern education. Huge increase in number of madrasas for carrying forward the legacy of Persio-Arabic educational thought;
* Demand for second official language status to Urdu despite this language being not the mother tongue of the Muslims all over India.
* Favouring the system of proportional representation in Legislative Assemblies and Parliament for Muslims(1967 Election Manifesto of Mushawarat)
* Assertive resistance against interference of Government in Personal Law of Muslims.
* Demand for Minority Boards to look after the interest of the minorities in the country;
* Strong opposition against any transformation in Minority character of Muslim institutions in the country.
* Assertive attitude towards management of Islamic trusts solely by the Muslims;
* No respect for judiciary in respect of Muslim Personal Law (Shah Bano case);
Mahatma Gandhi was against the revival of Muslim League in India but he failed to stop it. Mohammad Ismail, the first President of Indian Union Muslim League rather wanted the Congress to recognize the League as the sole representative of Indian Muslims. Though the Congress did not accept the proposal, yet by a strange logic let his new incarnation of All India Muslim League that was responsible for partition of the country to function.. Maulana Azad, who was against partition, was also indifferent over this issue.
With deprivation of separate electorates and reserved seats, Maulana Azad and some of his co- religionists preferred to share power in Nehru led Congress Government and left the Muslim masses completely under the guidance of Ulama. Had the then Muslim leadership taken up Hindu-Muslim unity as a prime focus of their agenda and made sincere efforts to unload the mental burden of their community that was carrying the psyche of two-nation theory they would have done a well-appreciated national service in general and positive service to their community in particular. This was possible by launching a secular movement in close rapport with Muslim masses. India is still in a search of Muslim reformer, who could secularise their community for their co-existence in a secular and democratic polity.
Indian Muslims became leaderless as those leaders in whom they reposed full confidence left for Pakistan leaving them leaderless for a while. Perhaps a leader with a vision who understood the politico-religious dynamics then obtained in the new dispensation of independent India could have guided the masses, but it was not to be.
For Muslims living in secular India -it was not a contract. It was an understanding that their destiny would henceforth be in independent India where there is no alternative to peaceful coexistence. Instead of giving decisive authority to democratic and secular institutions to settle the civic life of its citizens uniformly, they gave instead such authority exclusively in the hands of their clerics. Instead of rescuing their religion from its fanatical interpretation Muslim leaders continued to guide the community with medieval division of the political theory of Darul Islam (Abode of Islam) and Dar-ul-Harb (Abode of war). For them there is no other political concept in the dictionary of Islam.
In the absence of leaders with a vsion, the Muslim masses were left with no option but to look towards their Ulama (Islamic clerics) for guidance. The clerics for whom Darul-Islam is the only abode for Muslims took advantage of the situation and negotiated their own space within Muslim society and accelerated the movement for Islamic revivalism. Contrary to the need of the hour, they gave more importance to establishment of madrasas than sending the children of the community to government schools teaching secular and modern education.
The sudden increase in the number of madrasas after partition was an indication as to how the leadership in the community kept the Muslim masses away from modern education with secular curriculum in government schools. Till 1946 there were only 187 madrasas in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar but after partition, when a large number of Muslims from these two states opted for Pakistan, the number of madrasas instead of going down, increased to 356 by 1968 (Islam in Secular India by Mushir-ul-Haq, 1972, page26). By now the number might have increased much more. Even today the percentage of Muslim students in government schools is negligible. Where are the so-called Muslim liberals favouring modern education to Muslims to inspire the community for sending their children in Government schools? No society could be transformed with such an indifferent attitude of intellectuals.
Muslim leaders raised the issues, which had little to do with the welfare of the community. Issues like personal laws, emphasis on madrasa education, official status to Urdu language etc only widened the communal divide in the country and fomented religious conflict. They never blessed secularism and made Indian Muslims a permanent dissatisfied entity. Uneducated Muslim masses therefore fell into the trap of Ulama and gradually became obsessed with conservative interpretation of Islam.
In the absence of any monolithic structure of leadership in the community, fundamentalist organisations like Jamaat-e-Ulma-e Hind, Jamaat-e-Islami Hind and Tabligh-e-Jamaat took over the command of Muslim mass. Muslim institutions at Deoband, Nadwa and other places worked overnight to produce Ulama for conveying Islam -centric messages in Muslim mass so that their weakness for an autonomous entity remains intact. These organisations and institutions used secular India only to shield Islam from its secularisation and to promote religious bigotry. For them secularism was not a creed but an expedient philosophy, which was convenient for propagation of their Islamic creed of exclusivism.
Due to lack of modern education common Muslims failed to develop a clear vision about the secular and democratic path of the country. Lack of understanding of the new social and political challenge became a complex problem for the community as a whole. With their history of religious encounters they were not prepared to accept cultural synthesis with other religion. Even though they came across many turning points since Independence to unload their mental burden, they always remained indecisive.
Despite the supremacy of Islamic conservatism in Muslim society, Muslim intellectuals carried forth the debate on two-nation theory but left the uneducated Muslim masses completely unattended.
Autonomy in worldly life in contemporary world with prevailing socially accepted norms and values is the fundamental right of every human being. Since Islam puts restraints on its followers from such autonomy, secularism becomes an alien philosophy for them. Islam is a complete way of life and hence politics and religion are its inseparable ingredients, so they argue.
In view of the influx of Hindu refugees from Pakistan and the erstwhile East Pakistan now Bangladesh due to communal riots, Nehru who was known as Prophet of Indian secularism was facing the political challenge from the nationalist group.
Patel was forthright when he said: " For a community to think that its interests are different from that of the country in which it lives, is a great mistake" (Constituent Assembly Debate, Volume VIII, page350). His voice however could not be effective due to Nehru whose main concern was his political ambition. N.V.Gadgil, a Cabinet colleague of Nehru in his memoirs, 'Government from Inside' observed:
"The Indian Muslims remained, on the whole, aloof from the mainstream of Indian life after partition, but in almost all cities communal Muslim organisations continued their poisonous propaganda".
Students of Indian history are aware that Islam came to India through political conquest, which never intended to defuse religious conflict between Hindus and Muslims. Even Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India said, " when Islam came to India in form of political conquest it brought conflict" (India Betrayed- The role of Nehru by Brig. (Rtd). B.N.Sharma, 1997, page 215).
"Nehru's secularism, in real term amounted to looking India and the world from the eyes of Indian Muslims. It was an unmitigated minorityism and not secularism or even realpolitik" (Ibid. Page 208).
His tough stand against Hindu organisation but lenient attitude towards Muslim communalists was contrary to secularism in its ideal form. But contrary to it Sardar Patel's secularism sounded a different echo. Treating Hindus and Muslims alike, he did not approve unqualified compromise with Muslims and said:
"A minority that could force the partition of country is not a minority at all" (Ibid. Page 213).
Indian secularism accorded preferential treatment to one religion from other and did not work as a cementing force for social and emotional integration of Hindus and Muslims. In the absence of any viable programme to secularise Indian Muslims against their obsession to conservative Islam the concept of multi-culturalism or composite culture lost its sharpness for emotional integration of the Muslims with rest of India. The spirit of multi-culture is to restore a sense of social wholeness though it does not mean balkanisation of heritage. This wholeness was missing in secular India of Nehru, who succumbed to the resistance of Muslims against any attempt of their secularisation.
Constitutional recognition to religious minoritities became a debatable issue in the Constituent Assembly. Tajamul Hussain, a Muslim member of the Assembly was even opposed to do anything in the matter of religion by a secular State. Opposed to the freedom to propagate religion he said,
"If you start propagating religion in the country you will become a nuisance to others. So far it has become a nuisance". He added, "that this is a secular State and a secular State should not have anything to do with religion" Constituent Assembly Debate, Vol. 7, page816).
Despite the controversy over religion in Constituent Assembly constitutional protection was granted to religious minorities.
Instead of balancing the religious rights of different communities to unify the society, Indian secularism provided protective treatment to religious minorities and thereby negated the spirit of equal treatment to all the religious groups (Sarva Dharm Sambhav). Such discrimination however is still hailed even by Muslim 'secularists' like Asghar Ali Engineer on the plea that "one must understand that situation in India today is far from ideal" (Secularism in India by Ms Saral Jhingran, 1995, page13). No body knows how and when the ideal situation will come to India for secularisation of Muslims.
Equal respect for all religions is the crux of Indian secularism:
"The state in India being secular shall have no concern with any religion, creed or profession of faith, and shall observe an attitude of absolute neutrality in all matters relating to the religion of any class of its citizens or other persons in the Union" (Constituent Assembly Debate, Vol. 7, page 815). But constitutional safeguard to religious minorities is against this definition of secularism.
India adopted secularism primarily to counter the threat of prevailing communal discord after partition. It was however expected that there would not be any distinction in society on the basis of religion when plural India with a number of social orders mingled into one political unit. But the then political leadership of the country viewed the individual not as a citizen but a member of a particular religious group, which gradually legitimised the communal identity of Muslims in secular India.
A large majority of Indian Muslims still feel that secularism is a ploy to impose Hinduism upon them.
"They see in their integration with the Indian nation a danger which outweighs all other dangers. Their argument is that if they make the Indian nation, with its overwhelming majority of non-Muslims, the focus of their love and loyalty, their ties with their religion would become weaker and weaker until one day they would lose their soul which is dearer to them than the whole world" (Islam in Secular India by Musir-ul-Haq, 1972, page75).
Agitation against preferential treatment to Muslims in respect of their religion became a prime agenda of Hindu nationalists, who raised the issue time and again for their political gains. Religious obstinacy of Muslims in one hand and its challenge by Hindu nationalists on the other generated a social confrontation between the two largest religious communities in the country. This resulted in communal clashes in different states. In early sixties communal riots reached a peak, which compelled the Muslim leaders irrespective of their organisational differences to assemble at Lucknow in 1964. They formed an organisation called Muslim Majlish-e-Mushawarat with de- communalisation of Indian society as its prime agenda. But in absence of any honest and rational initiative on the part of its leadership it also failed to counter the religion centric movement of Muslim separatism. Had the Muslim leadership tried to understand the psychology of the majority community, which emerged stronger numerically after partition - they could have strengthened the democratic spirit in the community.
Since Indian secularism is not defined in categorical or clear terms, Indian Muslims can accept or reject secular state and secularism as suited to Islamic law (Shariah). Noted Muslim writer Mushir-ul-Haq observed that in the absence of any serious attempt "Indian Muslims are still groping after the meaning of secularism". But the question is - who will make such an attempt? There is no dearth of thinkers, writers and intellectuals in Muslim community but in last fifty-six years of Independence they have not come forward to work as opinion builders in Muslim society. They are not ready to face the uneducated Muslim mass due to fear of fundamentalists, who are still maintaining feudalistic control over the community.
Mili Parliament, a Muslim body in India in its meeting held at Aligarh on January 15, 1996 resolved:
"That the present secular system cannot ensure the protection of the legitimate political rights of the Muslims"
"That the Muslim MPs of all political hues are lackeys of the Hindus"
"That Muslims should support only those leaders who lead the Namaz in the mosques "
"That secular democracy is a constitutional fraud, while secularism and democracy are both UN- Islamic and 'Haram'"
"Muslims should prevent formation of UN-Islamic system of governance"
"That separate electorates for Muslims based on proportionate representation is the need of hour"
Despite the resolutions loudly sounded the echo of pre-partition Muslim League, there was hardly any protest against them even by the 'secularists ' in the country.
The latest example of Indian Muslims' protracted adherence to Islamic Law (Shariah) - is their reaction against the reminder of Supreme Court for enactment of Uniform Civil Code in conformity with Article 44 of the Constitution. A distinguished writer A.G.Noorani maintained:
"None can deny the fact that the Muslim law on marriage and divorce, as in force in India - the Anglo-Muhammadan law - violates the rights enjoyed by women in Islamic law (Shariah) (Muslims in India by A.G.Noorani, 2003, page 16).
Dr. Rafiq Zakaria, a well-reputed Muslim writer in his book 'Communal Rage in Secular India' has of late (2002) advised the Indian Muslims:
"They should do some introspection and ask whether they have genuinely tried to contribute to the strengthening of Hindu-Muslim relations since partition. The answer will be no" (Page 191). He urged them to befriend Hindus.
Muslim orthodoxy, which believes to live only in a country under Darul Islam (abode of Islam) - is never ready to divorce religion from politics and thereby cannot play a meaningful role to secularise its mindset. Even singing a song like 'Vande Mataram' to demonstrate loyalty to motherland is not acceptable to them.
Even after over half a century of Independence Muslim society in India has failed to produce any leader with pragmatic vision. Such leaders could only save the community from the allurement of election-eve-pledges of various political parties and also keep them away from fundamentalist group, that is determined to keep their movement for Islamic revivalism alive. Any voice if raised by non-Muslims against Muslim orthodoxy, is opposed with the plea that secularism is in danger. Whenever there was any attempt by the state to rationalise the civic life of Muslims it was viewed by them as anti-secular.
Against the backdrop of the discussion the only ray of hope lies with honest Muslim thinkers, who could secularise the Muslim mass. A Muslim think-tank comprising of intellectuals, eminent scholars, social activists, professors, doctors, lawyers, business personalities, scientists, writers and other professionals is the need of hour. If they could formulate some strategy to articulate the communal solidarity of the community for constructive Islam in modern sense and negate the divisive psyche from the mind of the community, it would be a great service to the nation in general and Muslim masses in particular. It should take lesson from the failure of Mushawarat and be extra cautious to guard against the political virus.
The think tank could emerge as a collective conscience-keeper democratic institution for promotion of secular education in madrasas, minimisation of the total dependence of the community on Mullas and infusion of an honest but independent thinking in them. For this the Muslim intellectuals,should be prepared to confront the existing Ulama, who are the real centre of power in Muslim society in India. Ironically, these Intellectuals are fighting against 'Hindu communalists' but are shaky to be aggressive against the communalists in their own society.
(E-mail: ramashray60@rediffmail.com)