HVK Archives: Myopia of Muslim Leadership in India
Myopia of Muslim Leadership in India - The Times of India
Sultan Shahin
()
30 June 1997
Title: Myopia of Muslim Leadership in India
Author: Sultan Shahin
Publication: The Times of India
Date: June 30, 1997
The communal cauldron refuses to boil over. The post-Babri phase of Muslim
politics has made the former Muslim leadership pretty desperate. Both the
religious and secular leadership has tried various stratagems. One issue
after another has been raised, from reconstruction of the Babri Masjid to
reservations for Muslims in services, educational institutions and
legislatures. But no ploy has worked. The Muslims are just not prepared to
be drawn into agitational and confrontationist politics on any issue.
Bizarre Demand
It is a measure of the leadership's desperation that the political party
Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Hind has come up with a bizarre demand. Maulana Azad
Madani, president of the Jamiat wants the small Muslim sect of Ahmadiyas in
India to he declared nun-Muslim, the justification being that this was done
long ago in Pakistan. His next demand would probably be that he be allowed
to raise an army of Taliban, the justification being that his sister
organisation in Pakistan, the Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan, has done the same
with remarkable success. But before this, the Maulana should demand that
the Muslim Personal Law be reformed, as Pakistan restricted polygamy and
regulated the practice of triple divorce, among other things during the
rule of president Ayub Khan. It is true that despite his liberal
reputation former prime minister of Pakistan Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had
succumbed to pressure from the obscurantist elements on the Ahmadiya issue,
thus starting a wave of repression against the community which is still
continuing.
The difference between Ahmadiyas and other Muslims is purely ideological.
The Ahmadiyas hold a view contrary to other Muslims who consider Prophet
Mohammed the last Prophet of God on earth. In all other respects, they
follow the teachings of Prophet Mohammad and the Holy Quran. Whether they
can he considered a Muslim or not is a matter for theologians to ponder
over, but it is largely irrelevant for the community as such. The demand
for a social boycott of this sect is simply outrageous. If it is wrong for
Muslims to mix socially with people belonging to another Islamic sect, even
if their sectarian status is questionable, then obviously we should not be
socially interacting at all with people from other religions. Is that the
stand Maulana Madani wants to take?
It is, indeed, sad that we are forced to ask this question from the head of
an organisation that played a respectable role in our freedom struggle and,
is known for its faith in our composite culture. The Maulana intends to
demand from the Central government that the Ahmadiyas be declared a
non-Muslim community. To what end? Just because Pakistan has done so. But
Pakistan is an Islamic country: it may have its own imperatives. If India
is proclaimed a Hindu rashtra would the Maulana demand that the Muslims be
declared a non-Indian community?
For the Muslims, the Ahmadiya question is totally irrelevant. If the
Jamiat-ul-Ulema does have to rake up a needless theological controversy, it
can raise it on an intra-Muslim platform. Why involve the government in a
religious or sectarian dispute? And if it is okay to involve the government
in such issues, why not also involve it in issues like status of women in
Muslim society, reform of our personal laws and so on. How can you ask the
government to settle one theological dispute and not involve itself in
others. Let the government also perform Ijtihad on our behalf. Apparently
the Maulana would prefer living in a religious rather than a secular country.
Muslims' Tragedy
The greatest tragedy for the Indian Muslims in this century has been the
myopia of their leadership. They have invariably gone for the suicidal
course. Both Muslim and Hindu aristocracy joined hands to fight against
the British in the first war of independence in 1857. This vast reservoir
of goodwill between the two communities was by and large intact till the
1920s, when Mahatma Gandhi supported the ill-advised Khilafat movement. But
Muslim leaders chose to squander such goodwill by siding with advocates of
separate nationalities. The result was partition which weakened Muslims by
dividing them into two, and further into three parts. After independence
non-issues were played up for their emotive value by the Muslim leaders. A
paralysing paranoia was promoted. The demolition of Babri Masjid weakened
the community further. I do hope the Muslim masses do not fall prey to
such leadership again.
Back
Top
|
