Author: Hari Jaisingh
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: November 6, 2006
Understanding it is imperative before claiming
success for cultural synthesis or assimilation
Some of the startling disclosures of the Sachar
Committee and estimates of the 61st round of the NSSO survey on the extent
of deprivation of the Muslim community in Indian society are bound to throw
up sensitive and controversial issues as well as non-issues. This need not
be a point of concern. In a democratic polity likes ours, every inconvenient
issue needs to be discussed freely and objectively with a view to finding
right answers to problems. The trouble with most of our leaders is that they
neither see hard realities on the ground nor do they believe in taking hard
decisions. They look at every issue as a matter of convenience and political
expediency based on vote-bank considerations.
Notwithstanding the glitter of high growth,
socio-economic realities facing the nation are both complex and varied. As
it is, the country is caught in the reservation quota controversy for OBCs
and the creamy layer among scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The NSSO
survey states that Muslim OBCs not only trail the non-OBC Muslims (general
Muslims), they are worse off than OBCs in all categories.
The moot point is: Why this pathetic setting
for Muslims? Why this failure? Who is to blame? These questions are not easy
to answer. However, I shall try and provide some clues to the existing state
of affairs which put Muslims at a disadvantage vis-à-vis other communities
in critical areas of education, employment, the poverty level, living conditions,
etc.
I will not go into the quality of the Muslim
leadership. It is for historians to make an honest assessment of men, matters
and issues that have dominated the thinking and events in the sub-continent
during the turbulent past and terrorism-ridden present.
Looking back, we need to objectively assess
certain Muslim-related critical issues in the context of Partition. We opted
for Partition on certain considerations. Have those goals been achieved? This
question has to be constantly kept in mind. It is obligatory on the part of
the Indian leadership to spare some thoughts for the Muslims who had chosen
not to embrace Pakistan. It was then necessary to give them a sense of belonging
so as to make them feel that they are better off from those who had joined
Pakistan.
Thus, the challenge lay in working out a blueprint
for an all-round socio-economic uplift of the Muslims as well as the other
disprivileged and deprived sections of the population. Was this ever attempted?
Well, we can look at the past only by taking liberties with the ifs and buts
of history. We need to have a fresh look at our mistakes and blunders so that
we can build our tomorrow on a strong foundation. However, the question of
a stronger foundation cannot be viewed in isolation. It has to be objectively
reassessed keeping in view changing times and rising expectations at all levels
of Indian society.
In the present context, it is the economic
status, the standard of living, educational and job opportunities of the common
man, which can make a difference to the way people, think. This is how we
can change the whole outlook of generations. We should have actually exposed
Indian Muslims to modern education, provided them better job avenues and created
better avenues for their socio-economic uplift. Has this happened? The ground
realities tell a different story.
I shall, however, not entirely blame the leadership
of yesterday and today for the present state of affairs. The clerics and the
overall Muslim mindset are equally to blame for the messy situation. This
is not a new development. This has to be seen in a historical perspective.
Realities today are, of course, different from those seen during the height
of the Mughal power. The British colonial rule inducted new elements into
the polity, leading to Partition.
The post-Partition situation demanded new
responses, new equations and new adjustments on the part of Muslim leaders.
But they were either slow in reflexes or became prisoners in the hands of
orthodox clergy. This point has been stated by the well-known Islamic scholar
Maulana Waheeduddin Khan. He says: "The truth is that whatever malaise
afflicts the Muslims, it is entirely the creation of their own leaders. In
modern times, when Muslim domination came to an end, Muslim leaders began
to project this new situation as the result of oppression, whereas it was
simply a question of the challenges that came with the passage of time. The
problem ought to have been solved by better adaptation to changed set of circumstances,
but the only course that these leaders saw fit to take was that of protest.
Such efforts were doomed to end in failure and we see evidence of that failure
on all sides".
Interestingly, he gives a pertinent example
of Muslim response to the opening of India's first Medical college by Lord
William Bentinck in Calcutta in 1835. Since Muslims nursed hatred of the English
"usurpers and conspirators", they organised a protest procession
against the opening of the medical college and demanded its closure. "There
then ensued the strange spectacle of other communities thronging to seek admission
while Muslim clamoured for closure".
Indeed, by adopting "this negative stance
Muslims lagged more than 180 years behind other communities in science".
It is the same old story that we have seen
in the wake of partition. In fact, this negativism has been visible even in
other areas of Muslim activities, including their reluctance to join the national
mainstream for a legitimate share in the national cake. Instead of carrying
the self-inflicted wounds of hurt pride, deprivation and intolerance, the
rational course would have been to seize whatever opportunities are available
for improving their socio-economic lot.
Apparently, the Muslim leadership failed to
guide the community on a course that required reasonable adjustment and rational
understanding with the other communities. In fact, instead of living in the
past all the while, the Muslims ought to have sought reasonable answers to
their existing problems. In the process, they could have seen a qualitative
difference in the response system of the majority community.
I am sure the Hindu response would have been
gracious and graceful without the burden of the past. Viewed in this light,
the emphasis has to be on synthesis and assimilation without loss of religious
identity.
