Author: R. Upadhyay
Publication: South Asia Analysis
Group
Date: November 9, 2004
URL: http://www.saag.org/papers12/paper1160.html
The history of Indian Muslims is
so complex that their isolation from the national mainstream and consequent
socio-psychological confusion have remained a puzzle for social scientists.
A study based on the factual developments related to this distinct and
a unique religio-social group may help the reader to draw right conclusions.
With the collapse of Moghul Empire,
the Muslim bourgeoisie, who prefer to call themselves Muslim Indians and
not Indian Muslims have been struggling to keep the Indian Muslims under
a mental blockade by using Islam as weapon. They treat their community
members as a communal constituency to bargain with the contemporary ruling
class to share political power. Assertive insistence of Islamic clerics
on a separate Muslim identity in a diverse but united society worked as
a catalyst to accelerate the movement for Muslim separatism launched in
this country for centuries.
Since the advent of Muslim rule
in India, Indian Muslims have been suffering from the malady of hate and
divisive politics of the ruling class. Initially, they became the victims
of Muslim Indians who had converted them for their self- seeking interest
and subsequently of the political class in their politics of vote arithmetic.
Ironically, they have never realised that they have been under siege
under Muslim Indians, who continue to carry forward the legacy of Sarhindi
to Iqbal.
Muslim invaders had massacred unaccountable
number of native population and destroyed large number of temples in the
name of Islam. They converted large number of Indians into Islam and kept
them segregated from the Hindus. Since then, the Indian Muslims remained
under perpetual siege of their medieval masters and subsequently under
their descendants. The upper class Indians who changed their faith for
sharing power under the alien Muslim rulers diluted their Indian identity
with the cultural identity of the former and were proud to consider themselves
a part of Muslim Indians. The converted Indians belonging to lower strata
of society however, never got equal social status.
Actually, the backwardness and miseries
of Indian Muslims lie in their mental siege under the preachers of Islamic
conservatism that has isolated them from their cultural past. The disturbed
socio-political Hindu-Muslim relation in India as we see today is nothing
but the historical legacy of the enslaved mindset of Indian Muslims being
carried forward from generation to generation. The answer to their problem
of so-called religious identity as often highlighted by the leadership
in the community therefore, solely lies in their freedom from the grip
of Islamic radicals. Ironically, even the contemporary Muslim 'liberals'
have not made any concerted and unified efforts to free them from the perpetual
mental siege.
Historically, the movement to keep
the Indian Muslims under siege dates back to the last decade of sixteenth
century when the great Mogul Emperor Akbar's religious 'liberalism' started
decaying. Starting from Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi and followed by Muslim thinkers
like Shah Wali Ullah, Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, Mohammad Allama Iqbal and others
the movement for a separate Muslim identity which is basically synonymous
to separate political identity with hegemony of Islamic power in this country
remained a permanent feature of Muslim society in India. Their concerted
efforts to keep the Indian Muslims under siege influenced even the contemporary
Muslim thinkers who are the repositories of their heritage.
Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi (1564- 1624):
Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi, who was popularly
known as Mujaddid (Renovator of Islam) had traced his descent from Caliph
Umar. Rejecting the 'heterodoxies' of the great Mogul Emperor Akbar , this
eminent Islamic mystic of his time and a hardcore Sunni Muslim strongly
refuted the Shia point of view in his writing entitled "Risala Tahliliyya"
and made a major contribution towards rehabilitation of orthodox Islam
in India. He tried to influence the courtiers of Akbar and continued his
tirade against the Hindus as well as Shia Muslims aggressively when Jahangir
ascended the throne of Delhi. He is widely known among the Muslims for
his letters written in Persian not only to his disciples but also to the
influential Muslims in the court of Jahangir. His letters exercised great
influence in turning the heterodoxies of Akbar to orthodoxies, which were
pursued by all the subsequent Muslim rulers from Jahangir to Aurangzeb.
He was so rigid in his approach towards Islam that he did not bend before
the emperor as per the prevalent custom when he was summoned to the court
of Jahangir. His plea that bending down before anyone except Allah was
un-Islamic, annoyed Jahangir, who ordered for his imprisonment in Gwalior
jail due to his discourteous behaviour. After a year however, Jahangir
under the influence of his Islamic writings released him from jail and
offered huge gifts to him. His tomb at Sarhind in Patiala is still an object
of veneration (Islamic Encyclopaedia, Vol. I, Page297).
Shah Wali Ullah (1704-1762):
Shah Wali Ullah another Islamic
mystic of the Sufi tradition of Sunnism who claimed his lineage from Quraysh
tribe of Prophet Mohammad and of Umar, the second caliph was found more
concerned with the political disorder after the death of Aurangzeb and
the fading glory of Muslim power. With his religio- political thought that
was based on the 'Persio -Islamic theory of kingship' (Shah Wali Allah
and his Time by Saiyid Athar Abbas Rizvi, page 397) he wanted the Muslim
society to return to the Prophet era for the political unity of the then
Muslim rulers. He translated the writings of Sarhindi from Persian to Arabic
to inspire the Muslim Indians and also invited Ahmad Shah Abdali, the king
of Afghanistan to fight against the Marathas to save the subjugation of
Muslims by the Hindus. His letter to Abdali was a part of his hate campaign
against the Hindus. He did not believe in Indian nationhood or any national
boundary for Muslims and therefore, invited Shah Abdali, Amir of Afghan
to attack India (Third battle of Panipat 1761), in which Marathas were
defeated. In his letter to the Afghan king he said, ".All control of power
is with the Hindus because they are the only people who are industrious
and adaptable. Riches and prosperity are theirs, while Muslims have nothing
but poverty and misery. At this juncture you are the only person, who has
the initiative, the foresight, the power and capability to defeat the enemy
and free the Muslims from the clutches of the infidels. God forbid if their
domination continues, Muslims will even forget Islam and become undistinguishable
from the non-Muslims" (Dr. Sayed Riaz Ahmad in his book 'Maulana Maududi
and Islamic state' - Lahore People's Publishing House, page 15 - 1976).
The political rise of non-Muslims
like Maratha, Jat and Sikh powers and consequent danger to Islam of its
political heritage was unbearable to Shah Wali Ullah. The slogan of 'Islam
is in danger' - is profoundly embedded to his hate- non-Muslim ideology.
The successive Muslim thinkers drew inspiration from his religio-political
thought and carried forward his mission, which ultimately gave birth to
the Islamic politics in India.
A great Muslim thinker and promoter
of one of the most emotional chapters of Islamic revivalist movements in
Indian subcontinent his political thought had brought the Indian Muslims
under perpetual siege of Islamic orthodoxy. The on going Hindu-Muslim communal
controversy in contemporary India is deeply rooted to his political Islamic
theory. The most significant contribution of Wali Ullah(Allah) for his
community is that his teachings kept alive the religious life of Indian
Muslims linked with their inner spirit for re-establishment of Islamic
political authority in India. It was the political theory of Wali ullah
that kept the Indian Muslims emotional social disorder and deprived
them of a from forward- looking vision.
Being proud of his Arab origin Wali
Ullah was strongly opposed to integration of Islamic culture in the cultural
cauldron of the sub-continent and wanted the Muslims to ensure their distance
from it. "Waliullah did not want the Muslims to become part of the general
milieu of the sub-continent. He wanted them to keep alive their relation
with rest of the Muslim world so that the spring of their inspiration and
ideals might ever remain located in Islam and tradition of world community
developed by it". (The Muslim Community of Indo-Pakistan subcontinent by
Istiaq Hussain Qureshi, 1985, Ibid. page 216). "In his opinion, the health
of Muslim society demanded that doctrines and values inculcated by Islam
should be maintained in their pristine purity unsullied by extraneous influences"
(Ibid. page 215). The religio-political ideology of Wali Ullah made a permanent
crack in Hindu--Muslim relation in this sub-continent, which undermined
the self-pride and dignity of integrated Indian society.
Ahmad Barelavi (1786-1831):
Waliullh's son Abd al Aziz (1746-1823)
carried forward the legacy of his father and as a result India faced
violent communal disorder for decades. Aziz's disciple Saiyid Ahmad of
Rai Bareli under the deep influence of the jehadi spirit of the faith propounded
by Waliullah and Sunni extremism of Maulana Wahab of Saudi Arabia launched
jehad against the non-Islamic power of the Sikh kingdom of Ranjit Singh
with a view to restore Dar-ul-Islam (A land, where Islam is having political
power). Though, he was killed in battle of Balkot in May 1831, Indian Muslims
continue to regard him as martyr for the cause of Islam. Tired with their
failures in re-establishing Muslim rule the followers of the jehadi spirit
of faith kept their movement in suspended animation for decades due to
the firm grip the British established on this country.
Post- Sepoy Mutiny (1857) Movement
for Islamic revivalism through Islamic institutions:
The movement for Islamic fundamentalism
got a severe jolt with the failure of the Sepoy mutiny in 1857, when the
Muslim radicals lost all hopes to restore Islamic power in India. The Islamic
clerics however, kept the movement alive through institutionalised Islamic
movement and founded Islamic institutions like Darul- Ulum at Deoband ,
Nadawa al Ulama at Lucknow, and Darul-Ulum Manzar Islam in Bareilly. With
thousands of madrasas theses institutions have been carrying forward the
legacy of the religio-political concept of Wahab and Waliullah. Farangi
Mahall was already founded at Lucknow during the period of Mogul Emperor
Aurangzeb. These institutions, which continue to draw students " mainly
from the starving Muslim peasantry and working lower middle classes" (Deoband
School and Demand for Pakistan by Faruqi, page 40) are the representative
bodies of Muslim proletariat. Leave aside the restoration of Islamic polity,
these theological seminaries are today producing thousands of unemployed
or under employed Islamic clerics without caring for their material prosperity.
In the absence of any scope for re-interpretation of religion for democratic,
secular, scientific, industrial and modern condition of the society, common
Muslims do not see beyond mosques and madrasas. These institutions have
therefore, succeeded in producing only turned them to self-proclaimed holy
warriors of their jehadi faith. In the name of preserving the cultural
identity of the Muslims these holy warriors are in fact serving the cause
of self-seeking Muslim elite.
Aligarh Movement of Sir Sayed Ahmad
Khan (1817-98):
Contrary to the Islamic revival
movement only through theological education, Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, a Mogul
scion and loyalist to British power launched a parallel Aligarh movement
with the objective to provide modern education to Indian Muslims. He was
the first scion of Mogul family in modern history of India, who launched
a unique Muslim separatist movement with a political and educational ideology
and an objective to restore the lost pride of his community after the fall
of Mogul Empire. Deeply aggrieved with the plight of Muslim Indians particularly
after the failure of Sepoy Mutiny in 1857and "acutely sensitive to the
ending of Mogul dominance", he is widely known as founder of Islamic modernism
in India. Though, a staunch believer in Sunni order of Islam, his outlook
took a decisive change after the Sepoy Mutiny in which he had personally
witnessed the sufferings of his community members at the hands of the British.
But as a part of his tactical move to bring back the Muslims into the confidence
of the British, he continued his loyalty to the British throne till his
death.
Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan while taking
inspiration from Shah Waliullah's concept of tactical moderation of Islam
formulated the two-nation theory which not only formed the basis for the
demand for a separate Muslim land of Pakistan but also coincided with the
'hate-Hindu campaign' of Shaikh Sarhind, Shah Wai-Ullah and Ahmad Barelavi.
Through scientific and modern education to Muslims his movement produced
a sizeable section of Muslim middle class with doctors, engineers, scientists
and scholars of modern subjects. This new class of Muslim however, also
came under the influence of the fundamentalist forces, worked as the fighting
force for Muslim elite and gradually succeeded in besieging the mindset
of common Muslim masses. Strongly opposing the formation of Indian National
Congress in 1885 on the plea that it was a Hindu dominated organisation
Ahmad Khan prevented the Muslim elite from joining it. Restoring confidence
among the despairing Muslims of his age he is largely regarded "as a forerunner
of Pakistan".
Instead of making any sincere effort
towards the Hindu-Muslim unity Sir Sayed Ahmad rather convinced the British
rulers that the two major religious communities of India were not capable
for unity. (Hali's Hayat-e-Javed, translated by K.H.Kadari and David Matthews,
1979, page 199, Idarh-e- adabiyat-e-Delhi Qasimjan Street, Delhi - Quoted
from Pioneer dated 20.10 2004 in a letter to editor column by Roopa Kaushal).
A noted Muslim scholar M.R.A.Baig
also observed:
" Being a descendant of high Mogul
officials, he emotionally could not accept that Muslims should be ruled
by their former subjects. He also feared that Hindu rule will result in
the imposition of Aryo-Dravidian culture on the Muslim Perso-Arabic civilisation"(
The Muslim Dilemma in India by M.R.A. Baig - page 51-52).
Religious obsession of Muslims remained
a potential factor during freedom struggle and formation of All India Muslim
League (AIML) in 1906. Internationally known historian R.C.Majumdar in
his book 'Struggle for Freedom' (Page 127, 1969) maintained:"Aligarh movement
gradually alienated the Muslims from the Hindus in the political field...The
anti-Hindu feeling was conspicuously shown in the Muslims' attitude towards
Indian National Congress since its very inception". He further said:
"It occurred to the Muslims that
in order to counteract the political organisation of the Hindus, particularly
the Congress, they must have a central organisation of their own" (Page
150, 1969). He added, "the spirit of Syed Ahmad dominated the Muslims who
with rare exceptions, regarded themselves as Muslim first and Indian afterwards"
(Ibid. Page 152). He quoted Sir Percival Griffiths, ICS, who "stressed
the Muslim belief that their interest must be regarded as completely separate
from those of the Hindus, and that no fusion of the two communities was
possible"(Ibid. Page153). "Middle class Muslim nationalism sabotaged the
natural process of electoral democratisation"(Ameena A.Saeed in an interview
in Times of India dated November 29, 2003).
The educational ideology of Sir
Sayed Khan provoked a violent reaction from Islamic orthodoxy but his followers
gradually overcame this problem. Aligarh Muslim University, a citadel of
Muslim Middle class played a major role in Pakistan movement under the
guidance of Muslim elite. The then Muslim leadership used this new class
to strengthen the siege of Islamic orthodoxy over the common Muslims with
the ultimate objective to achieve its political hegemony. Even today
Indian Muslims are proud of Aligarh Muslim University.
Urdu Movement:
The alien Muslim rulers created
Urdu as lingua franca (Mixture of different languages for convenience)
by mixing over fifty percent vocabularies from Turkish, Persian and Arabic
in native dialects. While Persian was used as principal standard written
language for administrative purposes, the Muslim rulers with the intention
to establish their permanent political, economic, cultural and linguistic
hegemony in India pushed Urdu as a substitute for the native languages,
which had Sanskrit origin and Nagari script. Urdu was gradually saturated
with Perso-Arabic script, metaphors, similes, the forms of verse, prosody
with about sixty percent of vocabulary, content of mannerism and poetic
thought of Islamic and Persian traditions. The birth of Urdu therefore,
created the first social division in Indian society.
Since the advent of British establishment
in India, Muslims have been struggling for revival of the medieval pride
of Urdu. Initially, the use of Urdu was confined to urbanised Muslim elite
and of those Hindus, whose economic interest was linked with it. But due
to its alien character it never became acceptable to native dwellers. Gradually
it formed part of communal, parochial and Muslim politics in the country
and was also linked with the cultural identity of Muslims. The pride of
place given to Urdu in the literary courts of Muslim rulers made this new
language a status symbol of the elite section of Muslims. Its Persianisation
and Arabisation and imposed supremacy over regional languages always remained
a source of irritant for the common Hindus as it disturbed the homogeneity
of Indian society. Obsession of Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to the linguistic
supremacy of Urdu as a symbol of Muslim domination over the cultural and
linguistic identity of this country gave credence to a first movement for
recognition of Hindi as the second official language of North Western Provinces.
Urdu-Hindi controversy therefore, originated from the Muslim renaissance
movement launched after the failure of Sepoy Mutiny in 1857.
Organisations like Arya Samaj, Punjab
Brahma Sabha, Sat Sabha and Sikh National Association joined the Hindi
movement and voiced their opposition to Urdu before the respective units
of Education Commission set up by the British to frame the education policy
for India. Realising the gravity of situation the British Government introduced
Hindi with Devanagari script in Bihar in the year 1880 despite the protest
of Muslims. The aggressiveness of Hindi movement "affirmed that for Hindus
Urdu was a pure and simple survival of Muslim tyranny" ((Muslim Politics
and Leadership in the South Asian Sub-continent by Yusuf Abbasi, 1981,
page 90). Introduction of Hindi in Bihar "quickened the pace of Hindi movement
in North West Provinces and later in United Province"(Ibid. page190). "Urdu
never indeed took root in the soil of rural India. One reason for this
was its snobbish aversion to the dialects of the regions, where Urdu was
supposed to have deep roots" (Anwar Azim in his essay entitled 'Urdu a
victim of cultural genocide' published in a book entitled Muslims in India
edited by Zafar Imam, 1975, page 259).
The followers of Aligarh movement
strongly opposed the replacement of Persian script with Nagri in the court
of United Province in April 1900. The Muslims took it as challenge to the
supremacy of their cultural identity and launched an agitation to oppose
Nagari resolution. They converted the Muhammadan Anglo Oriental Defence
Association (an outfit of Aligarh Movement) into Urdu Defence Association,
which was a starting point to corrode the unity of the national Freedom
Movement. Ironically, Deoband Movement, which was opposed to Aligarh movement
joined the Urdu Movement by identifying it as threat to Islam. Had Muslim
thinkers been honest to develop Urdu in the literary tradition of this
land with local script, Indian masses would have perhaps lapped it. Urdu
Ghazals printed in Devanagari script are much more on sale than its print
in Perso-Arabic script. In ancient India Sanskrit was initially written
in Brahmi script but due to its complexity Devanagari script was developed,
which was easier to learn. But obsession of Muslim thinkers to carry forward
Perso- Arabic legacy of Urdu identified this language with the identity
of Muslims as a separate social entity and created major hindrance for
it to become a language of common Indians. Such tendency of Muslim thinkers
encouraged linguistic separatism and hence Indian masses rejected it.
Formation of Muslim League:
Aligarh movement was the force
behind the ideology of political exclusivism in the name of religion, which
prompted All India Mohammedan Educational Conference held in Dacca (December
27-30, 1906) to form the All India Muslim League. Since then AIML maintained
a visible social and political distance from the Hindus and the Indian
National Congress respectively. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a prominent leader
of the Congress did not join the AIML till 1913 though, he supported the
League movement for separate electorate for Muslims. Within the Congress
he however always tried to bargain for one-third reservation for his community.
Formation of AIML was a major landmark in the history of modern India.
The first formal entry of a centrally organised political party exclusively
for Muslims had the following main objectives:
"To promote among the Musssalmans
of India, feelings of loyalty to the British Government, and remove any
misconception that may arise as to the instruction of Government with regard
to any of its measures.
To protect and advance the political
rights and interests of Mussalmans of India, and to respectfully represent
their needs and aspirations to the Government."
After the formation of Muslim League,
the Muslim Indians, in stead of battling against the British remained consistently
fighting a war against Indian National Congress a party that they described
as of Hindus. Since they had no love for any democratic polity and did
not foresee the possibility of restoration of Perso- Arabic hegemony over
the Hindu majority with resurgence of Islamic rule in the country, demand
for creation of Pakistan became their sole political agenda. They therefore
tightened their grip over Indian Muslims who remained constantly under
their siege since the establishment of Muslim rule in the country. Formation
of Muslim League opened a floodgate for Indian Muslims, who never looked
back to their cultural past. Since then various Muslim organisations like
Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Hind, Tbliq Jamaat, and Jamaat-e-Islami accelerated the
Muslim separatist movement to keep their community members under siege.
Emergence of Iqbal as Ideological
Father of Pakistan.
Allama Iqbal (1873/76-1938) widely
known as a romantic and Indian nationalist poet experienced a "mental crisis"
after his return from Europe in the first decade of nineteenth century.
Being sensitive to the problems of Muslims, he took keen interest in Islamic
mystical philosophy but used his intellectual brilliance only to strengthen
the grip of All India Muslim League over Muslim masses. His spiritual and
political guidance to his community for a separate Muslim state served
as bedrock for demand for Pakistan. He is therefore, called 'spiritual
father of Pakistan'. "Iqbal combines many contradictory trends in himself;
his verses could serve both conservatives and progressives as weapons"(
Encyclopaedia of Islam, Brill, Volume III, page 1059).
A product of the movement of Islamic
revivalism, which was based on the medieval concept of Muslim solidarity,
Iqbal is also known as a poet of Muslim awakening in India. "He stood for
going ahead with the Quran and revival of Islamic polity without realising
how the simple polity of earlier Islam was incompatible with the complexities
of modern civilisation". "He attempted to provide a systematic Islamic
base to the socio-political ideas of Indian Muslims" (Politics of Minorities
by Moin Shakir, 1980, Ajanta Publication, Jawahar Nagar, Delhi, page142).
His romantic ideas meant for reviving the interest of elite Muslim Indians
to hypnotise the common Indian Muslims and subordinate them to the former.
"Everything was made subordinate to the interest of ruling elite; science,
philosophy, democracy, constitution and fundamental rights of equality
and liberty were subservient to the exploiting class" (Ibid.).
Like Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, Iqbal
also failed to assimilate his liberal thought with the global concept of
democracy and could not free himself from the medieval moorings of Islam.
He propagated the political solidarity of Muslims on the basis of religion,
which fulfilled the political ambition of a section of Muslim elite who
got independent power in Pakistan after partition of the country.
Indian Muslims who supported the thesis of Iqbal but stayed back in India
got nothing but only demoralisation for the betrayal of their leaders.
Ironically, Indian Muslims are still proud of Iqbal. He is widely known
for politicising the two- nation theory initially propounded by Sir Sayed
Ahmad Khan. Muslim League with Iqbal as president adopted a resolution
in its Allahabad Conference in 1930, which formed the basis for demand
of Pakistan in 1940. Initially Mohammed Ali Jinnah was also an ambassador
of Hindu-Muslim unity but to fulfill his political ambition he took an
about turn and led the movement for Muslim separatism, which was launched
to negate the tactical move of Mogul Emperor Akbar to rule this country
through Islamic 'liberalism'.
After the exit of colonial power,
British India was politically divided between 'Hindu India' and Muslim
India with Pakistan as a new name to the latter. This division was however,
converted into political division only in August 1947, which had the endorsement
of over ninety- percent of the Muslims of undivided India. But ironically,
of the total thirty percent of Muslim population of British India, about
ten percent stayed back in 'Hindu India'.
Common Indian Muslims never understood
the complexity of Pakistan movement, which they had blindly supported in
the name of religion. Once they understood the reality of partition they
were hapless and helpless. They however, did not learn a lesson from the
betrayel of their leaders who again misguided them before leaving for Pakistan
with a slogan - "Hans Kar Liya Pakistan Lad Kar Lenge Hindustan"(We got
Pakistan with smile, we will take Hindustan with fight). A larger majority
of the Muslim leaders, who were first Muslims than Indian went to Pakistan
but handed over the besieged Indian Muslims who had actively participated
in their fight for partition under perpetual siege of Islamic fundamentalists.
Some of the Muslim Indians understood
the rising tide of Indian nationalism during freedom movement and took
refuge under Nehruvian concept of secularism after Independence. They however,
kept patronising the radical Islamists who carried forward the conceptual
legacy of Islamic glory in the sub- continent. Emergence of Indian Union
Muslim League, a new incarnation of All India Muslim League and multiplication
of madrasas in post-colonial India reveal that Muslim Indians did not like
to free the common Muslim masses from the siege of the Islamic clerics.
While Pakistan was declared an Islamic
State, India accepted democracy and secularism with not only equal right
to all its citizens but also certain special rights to Muslims as a minority
community. India did not give any constitutional recognition to Hinduism
even though its formation was based on religion. The Hindus of Pakistan
did not vote for a religion based state but they were forced to migrate
to 'Hindu India'. In south Asian countries India is an exception for not
giving constitutional recognition to the religion on the basis of which
it was reorganised after the end of British rule. The Hindus of this new
India however, never raised any assertive voice for constitutional recognition
to their religion as the ancient scriptures of this land suggest 'Sarva
Dharm Sambhav' (Equal respect to all the religions).
The post-Independence behaviour
of Indian Muslims hardly had any change. Their various grievances in the
name of Muslim identity are being exploited by all the political parties
that treat them as a vote bank only without taking any step to free them
from their siege. These demoralised religio-social group that stayed back
in India after partition, did not learn any lesson from the betrayal of
their leaders. Gradually, the Indian people learnt to ignore the bitter
past of partition and accepted the ground reality as such.
In post-colonial Indian polity the
Muslims leadership kept their community polarised in favour of Congress
for over two decades since Independence. Meanwhile, organisations like
All India Muslim Majlis-e-Mushawarat were formed to bring the Indian Muslims
under common platform but it too failed to resolve their socio-psychological
confusion. Organisations like Student Islamic Movement of India emerged
to re-infuse the concept of Islamic extremism among the Indian Muslims.
Division of Pakistan with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 for which
India under Congress rule fought a decisive war was not palatable either
for Muslim Indians
The 'secular' intellectuals belonging
to the Muslim community consider themselves as repositories of the heritage
of Shaikh Ahmad Sarhindi to Allama Iqbal. Instead of identifying the fault
lines in the attempts of Muslim clerics on excluvist identity. The Muslim
'liberals' are not ready to free their co-religionists from their perpetual
mental siege. So long as these 'secular' Muslims do not recognise the civilisational
underpinnings of pre-medieval India and link the Indian Muslims to their
roots for which no compromise to the spiritual Islam is required - possibility
of the freedom of common Muslims from the siege of Islamic fundamentalism
is ruled out.
"As long as Muslims felt that they
were an important and even decisive element of the ruling group they did
not feel that they were a minority a term that implicitly condemns a community
to the margins" (M.J.Akbar in his foreword of 'Indian Muslims : Where have
they gone wrong' by Rafiq Zakaria, Bhartiya Vudya Bhavan, Mumbai, 2004).There
are a number of Muslim intellectuals who write about this bitter truth
but it is an irony that they hardly speak this truth assertively when they
face Muslim congregations. They often quote the address of Maulam Azad
to the demoralised Indian Muslims in front of Jama Masjid after partition
but they hardly assert to ensure that the Indian Muslims are freed from
their medieval mindset and grip of Muslim Indians. The most unfortunate
part of their intellectually cowardice attitude is that they do not intend
to write or speak the truth for common Muslims.
If the Muslim scholars are genuine
secularists with conviction, they should launch an assertive movement and
intellectual jehad to generate collective concern among the Muslim leaders
to free the masses from the siege of the Ulema. As a first step they are
to free common Muslims from the medieval psyche of Ibrahim Khan's 'Red
Pamphlet' - "Ye Mussalman arise awake! Do not read in the same school with
Hindus". This is possible only if all the theological seminaries are converted
into educational institutions to impart modern and scientific education
with a proper preferably optional on theological subject. Kalama, Namaz,
Roja, Jakat and Haj, are perhaps the only ingredients of spiritual Islam
to maintain Muslim identity. Islam may be a complete way of life during
Prophet era but can't it be moderated according to global civilisational
changes as has been done in many Islamic countries? Muslim elite and middle
class in the community are unfortunately neither ready to unload their
medieval mental burden nor feel the need to free the ignorant Muslim masses
from the siege of Islamic fundamentalists. Though, this communal conflict
is being carried forward by the radical Islamists as a legacy of their
religious intolerance, the Muslim scholars often project it as an outcome
of divide and rule policy of the British.
In post Independent India, Muslim
'secularists' have been putting blame on Hindu nationalists for the Hindu-Muslim
divide. But they never raise any voice against Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan, who
sowed the seed of two-nation theory and Allama Iqbal who propagated it.
Both of them are highly revered among the Indian Muslims. They never condemn
Fida Hussain some of whose paintings were the burning example of blasphemy.
They are also fond of putting blame on Indian National Congress for sabotaging
the efforts of Mahatma Gandi for Hindu Muslim unity. They often refer to
Motilal Nehru's report for ignoring the constitutional demand of the Muslims,
which compelled a secular leader like Jinnah turning communal. Putting
blame on others for own follies is intellectual dishonesty. Zakaria admits
that "Indian Muslims became pawns in the hands of political parties" but
he has ignored the historical facts that his community members always remained
under the siege of the Muslim elite of this country. Is it not a historical
fact that the Indians converted to Islam were forced to forget their civilisational
roots from the day they changed their faith? Were they not forced to give
up their cultural identity before conversion?
Hindus have no inhibition to pay
reverence to Dargah of Muslim saints as they believe God in any form but
Muslim leaders hardly reciprocate such gesture by joining the religious
congregation of Hindus. They talk of reconciliation but are not ready to
cross the barricade of Islamic injunctions. They quote Akbar Allahabadi
who mocked the Mullah - " why should they travel by train when camel is
available" but they never came out aggressively against the Mullah who
openly expressed high regards to Osama bin Laden or loudly said that family
planning is against Islam. If they do not want the Muslims to defy the
Prophet's tradition how can they ask their community members to "discard
the outmoded traditions and out of date conventions"?(Rafiq Zakaria in
Indian Muslims - Where have they gone wrong, Page XXXIX, Bharati Vidya
Bhavan, Mumbai, 2004).
Through the ages from Shaikh Ahmad
Sarhindi to Shah Waliullah and from Sir Sayed Ahmad Khan to Sir Allama
Iqbal the Indian Muslims have devolved themselves to maintain a separate
identity. The contemporary Muslim thinkers of 'secular' and democratic
India have ignored this perpetual devolution of Indian Muslims. M.J.Akbar,
a reputed journalist rather found "Indian Muslims evolving through ages
" and linked their evolution through the poetry of Khushru, Ghalib, Iqbal
and Akbar Allahabadi. Zakaria in his book to complemented M.J.Akbar and
said that he had " convincingly refuted Sir Vidia Naipaul for his propagation
that Indian Muslims have developed no roots in India ". Every Indian would
have gladly accepted this compliment of Zakaria had the Indian Muslims
been also sensitive to the cultural and religious sentiments of the majority
community of this country.
If Muslim 'secularists, do not want
to spell out their mind on historical facts and want the Indian Muslims
to join the national mainstream without unloading their mental burden of
medieval India, they are perhaps also falling in the same line of Muslim
Indians who do not want to free their own community members from their
siege. How does Mr Zakaria expect the Indian Muslims to respond to his
saner advice "to take a realistic stand and sincerely work for collaboration
with Hindus" until and unless he intellectually confronts with Muslim Indians
for freedom of common Muslims from their medieval psyche? There is no dearth
of Muslim intellectuals who in their informal talk criticise the Mullahs
but they do not have the courage to confront them. If the Hindu intellectuals
raise their voice against the siege of Indian Muslims, they are branded
communal.
Without any deep understanding of
the philosophical underpinnings of the cultural tradition of Indian society,
obsession towards any exclusive identity on the basis of religion is always
detrimental to social harmony. The crux of the social tradition of Indian
society was a value- oriented concept of dignified co- existence, which
was however disturbed after the establishment of Muslim rule in the country.
"The notions of pluralism, equality and identity cannot be translated into
practice if pursued independently" (Pluralism, Equality and Identity: Comparative
Studies by T.K.Oommen, Oxford University Press, 2002, Page 1).
Islam or Christianity never had
any identity problem in India before the establishment of Muslim and colonial
rule in this country. Identity conflict started only when the Hindus were
discriminated on the basis of their religion and they had to suffer due
to atrocious behaviour of the alien rulers. Conversion through force or
allurement was the main reason behind conflict in religious identity.
Nationality is basically a geo-cultural
identity, which the Muslims in India have always disputed. M. Mujeeb, a
noted Muslim scholar and expert of the history of Indian Muslims observed
that the Muslims claim adherence to Sharia in principle but disregard it
in practice. In support of his view he gives example of Muslim landlords,
who often create private trust to prevent their daughters from getting
share in the landed property of the family. They however, claim themselves
to be the upholders of Sharia. (Islamic Law in Modern India edited by Tahir
Mahmood, 1972, Page 9). Similarly, Muslim elite hardly makes any sincere
effort to encourage the poor and economically backward Muslims towards
modern education, which may qualify and induce them to think freely and
independently. Madrasa education is producing merchants for selling reserved
accommodation in heaven after death but at the cost of poverty in present
life. Well off Muslims send their children for study in madrasas.
The monumental wonders erected by
Muslim rulers in different parts of India are symbols of Islam. These monuments
gradually got the status of national heritage. No 'secular' writer is ready
to pen this truth about the misuse of the public exchequer that could have
been spent over the economic development of the people. Such lavish expenditure
at the whims and fancies of the Muslim rulers reflect their luxurious style
of living which may be contrary to the spiritual concept of Islam.
The End of British rule provided
opportunities to Indian Muslims to unload their burden of medieval psyche
and legacy of Islamic concept of democracy by integrating themselves in
Indian society. The Muslim clergies in support of the elite section in
their community however, did not free them to do so but rather tightened
their grip over them in the name of religion. The political leadership
of the country on the other hand allowed the communal divide for vote bank
politics that has kept the Indian Muslims under perpetual siege. Had the
Indian Muslims been kept out of political Islam and encouraged for adherence
only to the fundamentals of spiritual Islam that is Kalama, Namaz, Roza,
Jakat and Haz the gap of communal divide might have decreased. In stead
of treating them as a political group had they been accepted only as a
religious social group the question of their religious identity would not
have arisen. In the name of religious identity the Muslim Indians are fighting
only for their political identity with a constituency of Muslim voters.
Post-Independence history of India
reveals that there was hardly any communal riot on the issue of spiritual
Islam. But Muslim Indians in their lust for sharing political power used
their community members in the name of religion only for their vested political
interest. Gradually, the use of religion became a national strategy of
power politics in the country.
The post-Independence behaviour
of Indian Muslims hardly had any change. Their grievances in the name of
Muslim identity are being exploited by all the political parties that treat
them as a vote bank only without taking any step to free them from their
siege. With the rising tide of 'Hindutva' the demoralised Muslim community
maintained a low profile but formulated the strategy of tactical voting
against the BJP in election and succeeded in removing it from power at
centre in 2004. Tactical voting of Muslims against the BJP was one of the
major reasons for the defeat of the party in Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West
Bengal and Maharashtra. How long this strategy will help the Muslim Indians
only time will say but this dangerous trend may be counter productive if
the Hindus are also polarised as it happened in the last Gujarat Assembly
election. This strategy of Muslim Indians could aggravate the growth of
Islamic fundamentalism, which is not in the interest of the country.
