- Web-only interview
with India's top Muslim cleric Syed Ahmed Bukhari
Author: Maseeh Rahman
Publication: CNN News,
Asia Now
Date: November 7, 2000
Syed Ahmed Bukhari is
the influential, newly installed Shahi Imam, or head cleric, of India's
biggest mosque, Jama Masjid. Taking up the post held by his father
(the imamate is hereditaru) on October 14, he didn't waste any time: announcing
plans to set up a new political party for the country's Muslims, while
criticizing the treatment of minority religious groups. Bukhari is
a religious leader, but the Shahi Imams of Delhi have historically rubbed
shoulders with potentates and politicians. He spoke recently to TIME
contributor Maseeh Rahman. Edited Excerpts:
TIME: Why do you want
to start a political party for India's Muslims?
Bukhari: India's Muslims
participated in the freedom struggle with the hope that after independence,
there would be an end to injustice and oppression, and that they would
get their due position in the new nation. But 53 years after independence,
no one has been able to heal their wounds. The Muslim community has
supported every leader who raised the slogan of democracy and secularism.
These leaders, such as Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi and V.P. Singh,
were all Hindus, but Muslims played an important role in their coming to
power. There is no greater evidence of the secularism of India's
Muslims than the fact that they did not acknowledge Mohammed Ali Jinnah
[the founder of Pakistan] as their leader. But they got nothing in
return. On the contrary, only those Muslims who agreed not to raise
the community's real problems in parliament got positions of importance.
TIME: But Jinnah created
Pakistan in 1947 as a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims.
Bukhari: Those Muslims
who agreed with Jinnah's policies went to Pakistan. But those who
wanted to remain in India clearly rejected Jinnah's ideas [of separate
Muslim and Hindu nations].
TIME: Are you saying
that this charge often leveled against India's Muslims, that they are pro-Pakistan,
is false?
Bukhari: What do we
have to do with Pakistan? Love of the nation is the Islamic duty of every
Muslim; those who do not love their nation are acting against Islam.
Until now every Muslim leader has been afraid to speak out openly against
Pakistan. But I want to make it very clear: it's regrettable that
today it is India's Muslims who are suffering due to Pakistan's anti-India
policies. It is they who are bearing the brunt of the damage caused
by the activities of Pakistan's ISI [Inter Services Intelligence, the Pakistan
military intelligence agency] in India. If anything happens today,
Indian Muslims are accused of being ISI agents and our mosques and institutions
are blamed for harboring terrorists. We cannot tolerate such conspiracies
against our nation. It is true that the country's Muslims have been
opposed to governments in New Delhi due to their style of functioning.
But people are labeling us as antinational just because we oppose a government.
Voting against a government in power is our democratic and fundamental
right. Our love and loyalty is with the nation, not with governments.
TIME: So you feel the
time has come to set up a separate political party?
Bukhari: In every field
-- education, employment, business, government -- the country's Muslims
have been kept down. So we've been forced to consider the need for
Muslims to assert their own political strength. None of the secular
parties we supported have given anything [back]. In fact, no party
has harmed Muslims more than the Congress Party, which ruled for decades
with the support of the community. The party in power today, the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is openly antagonistic to Muslims and Islam.
But the Congress, which pretended to be a sympathizer, actually stabbed
us in the back.
TIME: How close is your
decision to set up a Muslim party linked to the fact that the BJP is in
power today?
Bukhari: India has the
second largest population of Muslims in the world after Indonesia.
Yet the Muslims here have been reduced to a pitiable condition. Until
we acquire political strength, we will continue to suffer and we will get
no economic justice, no share in power, no education, no jobs...
TIME: But the new BJP
president [Bangaru Laxman] has called upon his workers to build bridges
with the Muslims.
Bukhari: The BJP has
received support from Muslims in the past. But it is the BJP that
alienated the community. What does the BJP President have to offer
Muslims? Is he willing to clear the grievances Muslims have against the
BJP? On December 6, 1992, the Babri Mosque was destroyed [by Hindu fanatics
in the northern Indian town of Ayodhya]. Does the president acknowledge
December 6 as a day of pride or of shame? On the one hand, BJP leaders
say Muslim Personal Law will be changed, that Islam should be Indianized,
and that "Islamic terrorism" is on the rise. And on the other, there's
talk of bringing Muslims closer to the BJP. It is no longer possible
to get Muslim support merely on the basis of verbal assurances. Until
we have our own party and become a political force, every party will go
on exploiting our weakness.
TIME: But won't a Muslim
party face the charge of being sectarian? And what will be your role in
the new party?
Bukhari: What's wrong
if Muslims have their own party? The Sikhs have one, the Dalits have their
parties, and the BJP came to power as a Hindu party. The new party
will not be antinational; its objective will be to strengthen the community.
As for my role, my mandate is not political. But speaking out against
injustice and oppression, and conveying a message to Muslims, is my religious
duty. I will not be a member of the party, but I will always be there
to advise Muslims.
TIME: It is said that
Muslims have remained backward in India, partly because of their religious
leaders. What do you say about that?
Bukhari: This charge
may have been valid in the past, when many elders would not allow girls
to go to school, for instance. But today you will find that in the
madrasas [religious schools], secular education is given and computer courses
are offered. The young want education, but don't get enough opportunities
because the system is unfair. They even find it difficult to get
admitted into municipal schools. Muslims today face discrimination
in every sphere.
TIME: But some religious
leaders have issued fatwas [a legal opinion or decree] against women participating
in elections.
Bukhari: These are people
with antiquated ideas. And they constitute less than 1% of the community.
TIME: So how come Muslim
Personal Law has been reformed in countries like Egypt and even Pakistan,
but in India religious leaders continue to resist change. Recently,
they failed to agree to an amendment to the divorce law, whereby a Muslim
man in India can get rid of his wife simply by saying "I divorce you" thrice.
Bukhari: In no Islamic
country has anything been done against the teachings of the Koran.
That is all propaganda. As far as the practice of divorce is concerned,
there is evidence of reform from early Islamic history. No single
religious scholar or leader can decide on this issue, though. There's
no doubt that the occurrence of divorce -- given in anger or in a drunken
state -- has increased within the community in India. If we're to
escape this malaise, there is an urgent need for religious leaders to sit
together and discuss the issue.
TIME: The chief of the
Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh [RSS, a radical Hindu group] recently called
upon India's Muslims and Christians to acknowledge their "Hindu ancestry
and roots" and "Indianize" their religions? What is your reaction to this
demand?
Bukhari: Religion is
a revealed reality; it is universal. You cannot enclose it within
political boundaries. Don't the Hindus living in the U.S., for instance,
see their religion as universal, and acknowledge its links with India?
So how can you tell the Christians living here to confine themselves to
India and have no link with the Vatican? Or tell the Muslims that they
cannot look toward Mecca and Medina?
TIME: Why does the RSS
go on about such issues then?
Bukhari: They are basically
attempting to emotionally provoke the minorities -- first the Muslims,
then the Sikhs, now Christians -- so that they get distracted from genuine
economic and social issues. Christians have been the most apolitical
and peaceful group in India, and Christian organizations have been providing
education and medical aid to countless Indians without any discrimination
on the basis of religion. Since they [the RSS] have failed to dominate
Muslims, they're now provoking Christians and hoping to dominate them.
The same injustice, the same persecution meted out to us is being directed
toward the Christians. The RSS is not interested in the welfare of
the nation. It is only concerned with dividing the people.
It is neither loyal to the nation, nor is it concerned with people's welfare.
The basis of their organization is to spread sectarian hatred.
TIME: You recently met
the Kashmiri leader Mirwaiz Omar Farooq. Do you see yourself playing
a role in resolving the deadlock over Kashmir?
Bukhari: Both India
and Pakistan are concerned about Kashmir, but neither side is concerned
about its people. Efforts have to be made to stop the bloodshed in
the Valley. Then the two governments, along with Kashmiri leaders,
should sit down and discuss ways of resolving the problem. All three
have to ultimately come together, as I can't foresee the issue getting
resolved without our involving both the Pakistan government and Kashmiri
leaders. India's demand that the violence should end before talks
can begin is a legitimate one. Efforts are being made to achieve
this objective, and in this process India's Muslims are willing to help
in whatever way possible. But the Indian government needs to take
Kashmiri leaders into confidence. When I spoke to Mirwaiz Omar Farooq,
I got the impression that Kashmiri leaders were willing to assist in efforts
toward ending the violence there.
