State Strategy for Development and Welfare of Muslims in India

STATE STRATEGY FOR DEVELOPMENT AND WELFARE OF MUSLIMS IN INDIA
FOCUS ON EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, CREDIT FLOW AND EMPOWERMENT

Abusaleh Shariff
National Council of Applied Economic Research
New Delhi – 110 002

Perspective
India is a vast country with varying levels of human development performance among its different states and social groups. India also has one of the largest Muslim populations in the world (102 million), next only to Indonesia. According to the 1991 census, 688 million Hindus, 102 million Muslims, 20 million Christians, 16 million Sikhs, 6 million Buddhists and 3 million Jains live in India. Of the total population of India, Hindus form 82 per cent, Muslims 12 per cent, Christians 2 per cent, Sikhs a little below 2 per cent, and Buddhists less than 1 per cent1. 64.5 per cent of Indian Muslims stay in rural India while 35.5 per cent live in urban areas. More Muslims stay in rural areas in the higher concentration states, while the urban Muslim population is much higher in states which have a lower percentage of Muslims.2

The concept of human development, as put forward in the Human Development Reports of the UNDP define human development as a process of increasing people’s choices by providing them with education, health and employment opportunities. A wider definition of Human Development (Shariff, 2000),3 suggests the following :

· Expanding choices for people so that they can independently decide ways and means to achieve material well-being within the context of the socio-political and economic systems prevalent in a country.

· Creating an ‘enabling environment’ so that the potential of individual human beings comes to the fore for the benefit of humanity and the country in particular.

· Generate equity and equality of opportunity and standard of living among all sections of the population.

However if one looks at literature with regard to the status of Indian Muslims, one finds that Muslims in India have a poor human development status. Widespread illiteracy, low income, irregular employment - implying thereby a high incidence of poverty are all pervasive among the Muslims.

However, this is not to suggest that the status of all Muslims is dismal or that Muslims present a single monolithic picture. Within the community there are wide socio-economic diversities. They have independent needs and these needs vary from state to state , region to region. Therefore, it would be in the interest of the nation as well as of the Muslim community if any welfare measure for the Muslims is considered in the overall framework of India and not remain confined and be seen only as a ‘Muslim’ problem. However it must be kept in mind that identity needs are important for all social groups and the programmes planned for each community must be in some sense unique to the community, keeping their needs and sensitivities in mind, especially at the micro level, even while the nation is kept in mind.

Education
Education, an important indicator of human development, merits attention in this attempt to understand the Muslim position in India, and for any welfare measures to be chalked out for them. While the census reports remain silent – revealing nothing regarding the status of Muslims vis-à-vis education, the few studies that are available are pointers to the backward position Muslims occupy in the field of education. Based on inferences drawn on the basis of data collected by some sample surveys, Massey (1998)4 concludes that the literacy level among the Muslims is on an average 10 per cent less than the National level. (5) According to the Annual Report for 1998-99 of the National Commission for Minorities (untabled)6

‘The enormous Muslim population of India is terribly under-represented in all public services both at the National and State levels. Their presence in general education institution of the country is also much below their population ratio – and is often found to be nil. Education backwardness is both the main cause and the inevitable effect of under-representation of the Muslims in public employment and resource generating bodies . . .’

The educational policies and its practice have been seen as threatening by the Indian Muslims after independence. Rejection of Urdu, the discrimination in gaining admissions, non recognition of minority institutions, the unsecular school culture, the text books which contain material repugnant to the beliefs of Muslims and their inherent bias, and a host of other such inclusions have been perceived by Muslims in India to be a threat to their identity. This perhaps could be an important reason for Indian Muslims opting out of education or else preferring to send their children to traditional centres of education. Increase in the number of Muslim managed educational institutions after 1947 also bears this out. This is also supported by the NCAER data which shows that while 70.3% of Hindu children in the age group 6-14 years of age go to government schools, the percentage of Muslim children going to government schools is only 49.5%, which, according to the NCAER report, could well be due to the medium of instruction and the content of the school curricula7. The table 1 presents the levels of literacy of 7+ population and ever enrolment rate by social groups. It is observed that the literacy rate is low (49%) among Muslims in comparison with Hindu (53%), Christians (81 %) and other minorities (54%) . However, it is higher than the literacy rate of Scheduled caste(42%) and Scheduled tribes(39 %). It is to be noted that the gender disparity is also low among Muslims in comparison with Hindu, Scheduled caste, and scheduled tribes, but higher than the gender disparity among Christians and other minorities. A similar pattern is observed in case of enrolment.

Table 1
Literacy and Enrolment Rate by Population Groups

Social Groups Literacy Rate(7 yrs and above) Gender
disparityin Literacy Ever Enrolment Rate(6-14) years
Gender disparityin Enrolment
Persons Male Female Persons Male Female
Caste
STs 39.3 51.4 26.0 0.51 60.3 67.6 51.5 0.76
SCs 41.5 53.4 28.2 0.53 62.5 69.6 54.7 0.79

Religion
Hindus 53.3 65.9 39.2 0.59 72.0 78.1 65.1 0.83
Muslims 49.4 59.5 38.0 0.64 61.6 66.2 56.6 0.85
Christians 80.8 85.0 76.5 0.90 91.3 90.7 92.1 1.02
Other Minorities 53.8 62.9 43.8 0.70 78.5 83.2 73.6
0.88
Source: India Human Development Report, 1999

Not only at the all-India level but at the state-level as well the literacy rate of Muslims is below that of the Hindus (Table 2). However, this rate is not uniform, varying according to different states. Among the five States the literacy rate for Muslims is the lowest in the state of Uttar Pradesh (35%) and highest in Kerala (86.9%). The Muslim literacy rate is lower than that of the Hindus in all the states except Karnataka where it is higher than that of the Hindus by nearly 4%, i.e. 58.6% whereas literacy rate for Hindus is 54.4%. In West Bengal and U.P. the literacy rate for Muslims falls below that of the SC’s population or is comparable to them, with the Muslim men’s literacy level being below that of SC men in both the States.

If one looks carefully at the data one finds that both UP and Bengal suggest a different picture as compared to the all-India figure. While the literacy figures for Muslims in both Bihar and Kerala are lower than that for Hindus, the percentage difference in both the states is same, i.e. 1.3% and is marginal. However, the differential in both UP and Bengal is much greater being 13.2% and 8.9% respectively. The same kind of differential can be observed when one looks at the ever enrollment rate (see Table 2). The differential between Hindus and Muslims is greater in UP and West Bengal, as compared to the other states of Kerala and Bihar.

Table 2

Literacy and Ever Enrolment Rate (6-14)

Literacy Ever Enrolment Rate
All M F All M F
BIHAR 44.0 56.6 28.8 59.0 64.7 51.2
Hindu 44.5 57.6 29.1 59.9 85.2 76.1
SC 27.1 37.5 15.3 44.1 51.0 35.9
ST 30.5 43.3 16.6 46.0 52.0 39.7
Muslim 43.2 54.6 29.2 54.5 59.5 48.0
Xian - - - - - -

UP 47.0 62.0 28.3 64.2 73.2 53.4
Hindu 48.2 64.0 29.3 66.4 75.8 55.0
SC 32.4 48.1 13.7 53.5 66.0 36.7
ST 33.6 46.5 16.0 53.6 60.6 41.3
Muslim 35.0 47.1 20.2 49.7 56.4 41.4
Xian - - - - - -

KERALA 90.0 93.0 86.5 98.6 99.2 98.0
Hindu 88.2 92.2 84.3 98.7 99.4 97.8
SC 77.4 82.6 72.2 97.2 97.3 97.2
ST - - - - - -
Muslim 86.9 90.4 84.1 97.7 99.1 96.5
Xian 94.8 96.2 93.4 99.4 98.7 100

BENGAL 59.0 66.3 49.9 66.1 67.0 65.1
Hindu 61.0 69.1 52.1 69.8 71.3 68.4
SC 54.5 62.5 46.0 65.7 66.8 64.6
ST 49.1 59.1 38.1 51.0 53.0 47.5
Muslim 52.1 59.3 44.4 57.9 57.2 58.6
Xian - - - - - -

KARA. 55.0 65.1 43.9 77.9 80.6 75.1
Hindu 54.4 64.9 43.0 77.4 79.9 74.8
SC 40.1 49.3 30.2 66.1 69.1 63.1
ST - - - - - -
Muslim 58.6 66.8 49.6 81.9 87.2 76.5
Xian - - - - - -
Source: Azra and Anil Gumber ,2000.

Coming to specific aspects, education and professional training are the basic needs of the Muslims in India. Hence universalisation of elementary education - a constitutional commitment - must be effectively and immediately introduced.

For this purpose the following steps are imperative:

· Providing schooling facilities for all sections of the population is the responsibility of the state. The state cannot shirk it’s duty by quoting the provision of article 28 and 30, whenever education for Muslims is mentioned.

· Special care should be taken while providing for establishing schools and colleges in Muslim concentration areas.

· Establishment of all girls school in areas, which are conservative and have a larger concentration of Muslims.

· Appointment of female teachers in schools serving particularly a Muslim population.

· Revision of textbooks and the school curriculum - to ensure that it is free from bias and from all controversial and objectionable material. Teaching material which is considered to be repugnant to the beliefs of any community should be done away with.

· Introduction of multicultural education as part of the curriculum of teacher training colleges, which include components, which will instill sensitivity among teachers towards members of different communities. This would help in making schools less alien for children coming from different backgrounds.

· Granting recognition to educational institutions set up by the community without any hurdles. However these institutions should be looked upon as supplementing government efforts and not as a replacement of government initiative. Wherever there are inadequate facilities some concession in terms of quality could be given to these institutions as a temporary arrangement for a fixed duration of time. While quality is of vital importance, sacrificing expansion in the name of quality may not be justified. What is being implied here is that it is better to have schools, which maybe not be so well equipped, rather than wait around for ‘quality ‘ schools wherever there are inadequate facilities.

· Making schooling and the curriculum relevant to the needs of the community.

· Removing the stipulation requiring Minority managed educational institutions to have only 50% seats reserved for their community, the other being open seats (as given in the St. Stephen’s judgement).One needs to remember why articles 28 and 30 have been provided for in the Constitution. They were essentially meant to ensure that the identity needs of different communities would be met. The introduction of a stipulation whereby 50% of the seats are denied to the specific community militates against the very spirit of what these articles stood for. Besides would it be fair to ask communities who have set up these institutions with their own resources to also now be responsible to meet the educational requirements of other communities besides their own?

· There should be flexibility regarding the school uniform for all communities, to be able to modify it according to the sensitivity of the community. Uniform should not become the reason why certain children don't go to school. Many western countries have accepted the need for different communities to dress differently and have accordingly given in, allowing for flexibility with regard to school uniform.

· Primary education to the children should be given through their Mother Tongue - if necessary, by aggregating them horizontally in some schools in some sections, if a particular linguistic group in a given area is small.

· Maktabs and madarsas continue to have an important place in Muslim societies as they meet certain religious and educational needs of the community. Over the years these institutions too have been subjecting themselves to scrutiny as a result of which a number of changes have come about, keeping in view the needs of the time. Besides, not all products of these institutions become muftis, qazis or imams. To widen the scope of employment for its products a number of madarsahs have planned their courses of study in such a manner as to facilitate the entry of its students into so called mainstream education at a number of terminal points – elementary , secondary, higher secondary and even at the degree level. The government. scheme of modernization of madarsas has been ill conceived undermining the very raison d’etre of the madarsas. Such interventions can only be counter productive. In any case any scheme of the government intervention in madarsas should not suggest that the government has fulfilled its commitment towards the Muslim community nor provide an alibi for the state not to establish regular schools in Muslim concentration areas. Rather the government should facilitate easy entry of madarsa graduates into mainstream education at a number of terminal points in a large number of institutions across the country, not remaining confined to institutions the Aligarh Muslim University or the Jamia Millia Islamia.

· Another area of importance is vocational and technical training. There is an urgent need for establishing facilities in Muslim concentration areas - as part of the general programme for promotion of technical training. Muslims should also receive equitable share in the benefits of such micro-schemes as TRYSEM at the Panchayat level.

· A more significant area is professional educational. Reservation based on the proportion of population in a given and defined area, not only for Muslims but for all identifiable backward communities (or castes or classes), without diluting the minimum admission requirements, is the need of the hour.

Employment Opportunities and Economic Participation

While the educational backwardness of Muslims in post-independence India is now an accepted fact, with the government openly declaring in 19868 that Muslim and neo-Buddhists were educationally backward – their economic situation is no better. number of studies on the occupation and work participation of Muslims are indicative of the overall socio-economic condition in which Muslims are placed.

Employment Opportunities

From table 3 given below one can see that the WPR for males in rural and urban areas is fairly high. The differential between religious groups for male is also marginal. However, the differential between religious groups for females is substantial. WPR for urban Muslim females is 11.4%, for Hindu female is 15.9% and Christian 23.6%. Amongst rural Muslim females it is 19.6%, for Hindu female it is 33.7%. More Muslims have reported self-employment in category of work as compared to Hindus. However, Hindus share in regular work is substantially higher.

Table 3

Pattern of Employment by Religion in India

Residence/Sex & Religion Self-employed Regular Workers
Casual Workers All WPR
Urban Males
Hindus 39.1 46.4 14.5 100.0 52.0
Muslims 53.3 29.9 16.7 100.0 49.1
Christians 29.7 53.4 17.0 100.0 48.1
Urban Females
Hindus 45.0 27.7 26.4 100.0 15.9
Muslims 60.0 15.7 24.3 100.0 11.4
Christians 34.3 51.5 14.2 100.0 23.6
Rural Males
Hindus 58.5 10.1 31.4 100.0 54.2
Muslims 59.0 7.5 33.5 100.0 50.5
Christians 52.1 12.0 35.9 100.0 -
Rural Females
Hindus 59.9 3.6 36.5 100.0 33.7
Muslims 67.9 3.0 29.1 100.0 19.6
Christians 57.6 9.9 32.4 100.0 37.3
Source : NSS 43rd Round, 1987-88 cited in Abusaleh
Shariff, EPW, November 18, 1995.

Table 4 shows WPRs based on usual and subsidiary status for all persons as well as of adults (15-59). Looking at the WPR (usual and usual and subsidiary) one finds a differential between the WPR of Hindus and Muslims in favour of the Hindus at the all-India level. This finding repeats itself across all the five states under study with the WPR for Muslims being below both the Hindus, as well as, below the averages for the state in all the states, the differential being relatively more in the case of females. An interesting finding is that whereas both in Kerala and Karnataka Muslims are relatively in a better position than their counterparts in the other s tates on most indicators, as far as WPR goes they lag behind as can be seen in the differential between their WPR and that of the state average as well as in comparison to the Hindus as a group.

If we look at the WPR for persons aged 15-59 which is a relatively more stable estimate we find that these differentials persist whereas there is an increase in the overall percentage of those participating for all groups. While the differential is in favour of the Hindus throughout, the WPR for Muslim male (15-59 years) is higher in the state of UP (84.8% Muslims and 80.8% Hindus) and Bengal (85.8% Muslims, 80.9% Hindus) surpassing even the average male (15-59) WPR for each state – UP (81.3%) and Bengal (81.4%) with female (15-59 years) WPR continuing to be lower for Muslims. One needs to probe further this peculiar trend of WPR for Muslim men (15-59 years) being high in UP and Bengal, as well as, the fact that WPR for both Muslim men and women (all persons) is low in the otherwise relatively better developed states of Kerala and Karnataka as far as Muslims are concerned.

Table 4

Work Participation Rate (%) Among all Persons
and Adults by Population Groups
USUAL STATUS USUAL AND SUBSIDARY STATUS
All Persons Adults (15-59) Years All Persons Adults
(15-59) Years
Male Female F/M Male Female F/M Male Female F/M Male
Female F/M
IND 51.9 18.4 0.35 82.7 29.5 0.36 52.4 26.0 0.5 83.1
40.7 0.49
Hin 52.3 19.3 0.37 82.8 30.8 0.37 52.7 26.5 0.50 83.2
41.4 0.50
Mus 48.0 9.6 0.20 82.6 16.3 0.20 48.8 19.3 0.40 83.4
32.0 0.38
Xian 52.8 25.5 0.48 78.0 37.1 0.48 53.3 27.8 0.52 78.7
40.2 0.51
SC 52.8 23.0 0.44 85.0 37.9 0.45 53.2 30.4 0.57 85.4
48.8 0.57
ST 51.6 27.7 0.54 87.2 45.3 0.52 52.4 32.1 0.61 88.0
51.4 0.58

Bih. 48.4 9.1 0.19 81.5 15.1 0.19 49.1 19.0 0.39 82.2
30.5 0.37
Hin 48.8 9.0 0.19 81.7 15.0 0.18 49.5 19.1 0.39 82.3
30.5 0.37
Mus 44.2 6.8 0.15 77.7 11.8 0.15 45.3 17.8 0.39 79.3
29.2 0.37
Xian - - - - - - - - - - - -
SC 50.0 14.5 0.29 85.6 24.1 0.28 50.8 22.7 0.45 86.3
37.3 0.43
ST 49.7 16.4 0.33 78.8 29.1 0.37 50.5 21.5 0.42 79.9
37.3 0.47

UP 48.5 7.4 0.15 81.3 13.1 0.16 48.8 20.6 0.42 81.7
35.4 0.43
Hin 48.6 7.7 0.16 80.8 13.5 0.17 48.9 20.5 0.42 81.2
35.1 0.43
Mus 47.4 5.4 0.11 84.8 10.1 0.12 47.9 20.5 0.43 85.8
37.7 0.44
Xian - - - - - - - - - - - -
SC 50.4 13.5 0.27 86.4 23.8 0.28 50.7 25.3 0.50 86.7
43.2 0.50
ST 44.7 9.7 0.22 81.7 17.3 0.21 44.7 18.9 0.42 81.7
33.7 0.41

Ker. 53.6 28.5 0.53 76.7 40.0 0.52 53.7 29.1 0.54 76.7
40.9 0.53
Hin 55.4 32.9 0.59 77.8 44.8 0.58 55.5 33.6 0.61 77.9
45.8 0.59
Mus 44.1 18.2 0.41 73.2 28.4 0.39 44.1 19.0 0.43 73.2
29.7 0.41
Xian 55.8 26.8 0.48 76.1 36.9 0.49 55.8 26.8 0.48 76.1
37.0 0.49
SC 55.2 42.8 0.78 77.6 59.2 0.76 55.2 43.3 0.78 77.6
60.0 0.77
ST - - - - - - - - - - - -

Ben. 51.8 7.4 0.14 81.4 11.9 0.15 53.4 20.4 0.38 82.4
29.8 -
Hin 52.4 8.3 0.16 80.9 12.8 0.16 54.1 21.2 0.39 81.9
30.1 0.37
Mus 51.5 4.2 0.08 85.8 7.3 0.09 52.7 17.3 0.33 86.5
27.7 0.32
Xian - - - - - - - - - - - -
SC 52.0 7.3 0.14 83.9 12.4 0.15 53.4 20.1 0.38 84.9
30.1 0.35
ST 46.7 21.6 0.50 83.1 36.8 0.44 50.3 39.6 0.79 86.5
59.0 0.68

Kar. 54.5 31.2 0.57 82.1 47.8 0.58 54.9 32.5 0.59 82.3
49.1 0.60
Hin 55.1 31.9 0.58 82.1 48.4 0.59 55.5 33.1 0.60 82.4
49.5 0.60
Mus 48.8 25.4 0.52 82.5 42.3 0.51 48.9 27.0 0.55 82.8
44.4 0.54
Xian - - - - - - - - - - - -
SC 56.7 38.2 0.67 86.9 63.0 0.72 56.7 39.2 0.69 86.9
64.1 0.74
ST - - - - - - - - - - - -
Source: Azra and Anil Gumber ,2000

Discarding the myth of Muslim appeasement, Sikand highlights the economic plight of the community and the concentration of Muslims in peripheral and fast diminishing trades in the urban economy. According to him: “They (the Muslims) are predominant in the ‘self-employed’ category that includes such low-status occupations as those of cobbler, small artisan, rikshaw-puller, pavement stall owner and petty retailer. Relatively fewer urban Muslims than Hindus work for a regular wage or salary, and their representation in the “casual labour� category is higher than that of other communities.9 Corroborating this low status of Muslim employment, Arvind Das adds that here the Muslims “suffer double discrimination, by virtue of being both Muslim and poor�10

According to the annual report of the National Commission of Minorities, the largest minority of the country ‘remains grossly under-represented in all services including the Police’. 11

Summing up the situation of Indian Muslims Tahir Beg writes (12):

· Muslims have negligible presence in the public and private corporate sector both as managers and workers and also as capital subscribers.

· Muslims have nominal presence in the small-scale and cottage organized sector, though they have been pioneers in handicrafts and artisanship.

· In agriculture proper and the allied activities Muslims have a very nominal presence.

· So far as the tertiary public sector is concerned, Muslims have nominal presence in government administrative, police and defence services, and more or less no share in financial and banking institutions. However in the private sector, such as transportation, repairing and other community services, Muslims have an unduly high percentage share.

Consistent denial of opportunities in public and private employment has led to a larger concentration of Muslims in the self employment sector which has to some extent also been beneficial to them. (13). But this is not to suggest that denial of this space is justified especially keeping in mind its importance for both economic and social reasons. Experience has shown that without reservation in public employment, Muslim representation cannot be upgraded. While participation in public employment means creation of social capital and flow of public funds into a community for its overall development; more importantly it gives the community a sense of participation, creates future openings and opportunities for the next generation and above all brings a community out of the wells of frustration and alienation. Participation of Muslims necessitates a reworking of recruitment policies on purely territorial lines, with equal opportunity for all people of all areas, and within an area, for all religious and caste groups. If employment is assured through reservation, it would serve as an incentive for the community to invest in education for the future of its children.

To promote self-employment availability of bank credit is essential, even if it is micro-credit. Banks should have general scheme for micro-credit for the self-employed to provide them the seed money to establish one-man or family ventures. A loan of Rs.10,000 to 25,000 in a mofussil town would not only provide gainful employment for an individual but support an entire family and promote its future.

Wakf properties are another source of development funds. All immovable public Wakf properties should be free of rent control, ceiling and tax laws, so that their income can be raised and the surplus available after meeting the expenditure for the prescribed purposes can be used for education and economic development.

Economic Assets and Income

The average household income for rural India is Rs. 25,653/- per annum and the per capita income is Rs. 4,485/- On an all-India level, the annual household income for Muslims as a social group is below the all-India average, as well as, below that of the Christians (household income – 28,860/- and per capita 5,920/-) and that of Hindus (household income –25,713/- and per capita – 4,514/-) (See Table 6).

The household annual income and the per capita income of both Hindus and Muslims is below the all-India average in Bihar and West Bengal, whereas in Kerala it is above the all-India average. Muslims in Kerala have an annual income of Rs. 29,991/-, higher than the annual income of Hindus in that state (26,344/-) However, the per capita of Muslims in Kerala is lower than that of the Hindus. In UP and Karnataka Muslims have a lower total annual and per capita income than the Hindus. One finds that at the all-India level, as well as, in four out of the five states i.e. UP, Bihar, Bengal and Karnataka, Muslims have a lower level of income as compared to Hindus. There also does not appear to be any relationship between income and literacy levels of the Muslims in the five states as can be seen in the Table 5 given below.

Table 5

Annual Income Per Capita Literacy
Muslim Hindu Muslim Hindu Muslim Hindu
29,991 (Ker.) 27,801 (Kar.) 4,666 (Ker.) 5,435 (Ker.)
86.9 (Ker.) 88.2 (Ker.)
24,298 (UP) 27,079 (UP) 3,826 (UP) 4,897 (Kar.) 58.6
(Kar.) 61.0 (Ben.)
23,661 (Kar.) 26,344 (Ker.) 3,681(Kar.) 4,514 (Ind.)
52.1 (Ben.) 54.4 (Kar.)
22,807 (Ind.) 25,713 (Ind.) 3,678 (Ind.) 4,235 (UP)
49.4 (Ind.) 53.3 (Ind.)
21,369 (Bih.) 22,812 (Bih.) 3,479 (Bih.) 3,726 (Bih.)
43.2 (Bih.) 44.5 (UP)
17,401(Ben.) 18,441 (Ben.) 2,802 (Ben.) 3,298 (Ben.)
35.0 (UP) 44.5 (Bih.)
The table has been arranged in a descending order for both Muslims and Hindus.

Kerala Muslims have the highest annual and per capita income, as well as, the highest literacy level for Muslims among the five states. However, this trend is not visible in UP, which has the second highest annual and per capita income, but the lowest level of literacy among the five states.

At the all-India level, the share of income from agriculture is highest for Hindus (56.1%) followed by ST (55.6%), Christian (46.3%), Muslims (44.1%) and SC’s (37.7%). Muslims share of income from agriculture is below the national average of 55% in all the five states. Muslims, however, get a large share of their income from artisanship and petty trade as compared to the other social groups both at the all-India level, as well as, in the five states under study. However, in Kerala, Hindus earn more as artisans than Muslims while Muslims continue to earn more than Hindus in trade.

Ownership of Assets and Amenities

Land, Draught and Milch animals continue to be important indicators of the level of living in an agricultural society. Table 6 presents data on land and livestock according to the social groups. At the all-India level 63.4% of households have reported ownership of land and the

Table 6

Ownership of assets by Social Groups and States

H.H. Inc. Per Cap. Land Holdings Draught Animals
Milch Animals
%RpHH Avg.R-hhAcres Avg.All hhAcres %RpHH
Avg.R-hhNo. Avg.AllHH %RpHH Avg.R-hhNo. Avg.AllHH
INDIA
Hindus 25,713 4,514 64.5 4.6 3.0 34.3 2.7 0.9 49.6 2.3
1.1
SC 17,465 3,237 46.6 2.8 1.3 22.8 2.7 0.6 38.1 2.0 0.7
ST 19,556 3,504 69.0 4.3 2.9 51.6 3.2 1.6 44.9 2.5 1.1
Muslims 22,807 3,678 56.5 3.6 2.0 28.0 3.9 1.1 38.0
2.7 1.0
Xian 28,860 5,920 58.2 2.0 1.1 12.0 4.3 0.5 30.3 2.3
0.7

BIHAR
Hin 22,812 3,726 60.6 3.7 2.3 39.4 2.6 1.0 44.3 2.4
1.1
SC 15,425 2,706 33.7 3.0 1.0 18.9 3.6 0.7 32.3 2.3 0.7
ST 21,683 3,699 76.6 4.2 3.2 56.4 2.5 1.4 30.0 2.5 0.8
Mus 21,369 3,479 45.0 3.8 1.7 21.4 3.4 0.7 31.9 2.1
0.7
Xian - - - - - - - - - - -

UP
Hin 27,079 4,235 77.7 3.3 2.6 32.5 2.1 0.7 67.4 1.9
1.3
SC 17,259 3,025 63.3 1.9 1.2 25.4 2.0 0.5 56.2 1.7 1.0
ST 21,370 3,292 72.0 3.0 2.2 44.5 1.7 0.8 65.1 1.8 1.2
Mus 24,298 3,826 60.8 3.5 2.1 20.0 1.8 0.4 46.7 1.7
0.8
Xian - - - - - - - - - - -

KER.
Hin 26,344 5,435 74.4 0.8 0.6 2.8 2.0 0.1 20.8 1.4 0.3
SC 16,477 3,415 58.9 0.2 0.1 3.0 1.7 0.1 10.1 1.4 0.1
ST - - - - - - - - - - -
Mus 29,991 4,666 85.2 0.7 0.6 2.0 2.1 0.0 18.5 1.8 0.3
Xian 34,869 7,414 84.9 1.3 1.1 2.5 5.4 0.1 34.5 1.6
0.6

BENGAL
Hin 18,441 3,298 52.3 3.0 1.6 34.7 3.2 1.1 36.5 2.4
0.9
SC 16,396 2,959 47.3 2.1 1.0 31.3 3.8 1.2 31.7 2.3 0.7
ST 11,010 1,993 28.9 2.0 0.6 13.6 1.8 0.2 21.3 2.8 0.6
Mus 17,401 2,802 57.2 2.4 1.4 38.9 3.4 1.3 29.5 2.7
0.8
Xian - - - - - - - - - - -

KARA.
Hin 27,801 4.897 66.6 5.9 3.9 41.2 2.3 0.9 46.7 2.1
1.0
SC 16,579 3,094 43.4 4.6 2.0 27.6 2.1 0.6 26.0 1.8 0.5
ST - - - - - - - - - - -
Mus 23,661 3,681 39.9 5.7 2.3 18.5 2.9 0.5 27.0 2.5
0.7
Xian - - - - - - - - - - -
Source: Azra and Anil Gumber, 2000

average size of land holding for India is 4.5 acres. A larger percentage of Hindus, as compared to Muslims have reported ownership of land, both at the all-India level (Hindus 64.5%) and Muslims (56.5%) and at the state level. However, in Kerala 85.2% Muslims have reported ownership of land as compared to 74.4% of Hindus. Out of the five states Muslims have reported the lowest ownership of land in Karnataka (39.9)and highest in Kerala Hindus have reported highest in U.P.(77.7%) and lowest in Bengal(52.3%).

33 percent of all rural households reported ownership of draught animals (see Table 6). However, here too one finds that the number of Muslim households reporting ownership of draught animals is lower as compared to Hindus, both at the all-India level and at the state level, except in Bengal, where more Muslims have reported than Hindus. The differential is highest in Karnataka where 41.2%. Hindus have reported as against 18.5% Muslims; followed by Bihar where 39.4% Hindus have reported ownership of draught animals as compared to 21.4% Muslims However, this disparity is not consistent when one compares the average number of draught animals owned per reporting household as can be seen in the table. Excepting for UP where the average for Hindus is 2.1% and that for Muslims is 1.8%, in all other states, as well as, at the all-India level, the figure for Muslims is higher than that for Hindus. This shows that while lesser number of Muslim households own draught animals, the ones who do own, have more draught animals as compared to the Hindus i.e. within the community there is greater disparity. Ownership is concentrated in fewer hands.

As far as ownership of Milch animals is concerned Muslims are relatively less well off in comparison to the Hindus. The percentage of Muslim households reporting ownership of Milch animals is lower than the all-India average of 48% in all the five states. While in Kerala the percentage is low for both Hindus (20.8%) and Muslims (18.5%) in the other states the differential between Hindus and Muslims is substantial. The highest percentage of Muslims reporting ownership is in U.P. (46.7)

Political participation and welfare

Political participation is another indicator of a community's empowerment. In a democracy, the legislature is the fountainhead of power. The fact is that the Muslim community is inadequately or simply not represented in several legislatures and even in the Lok Sabha, its representation is less than 50 per cent of what it should be, assesed as per the share in the population. Besides being an alienating experience, absence of legislators from any social group in a plural and segmented society puts that group at a clear disadvantage. The role of the MP or the MLA in promoting the development of his constituency cannot be ever emphasized. The Community’s interests can be brought centre stage with the help of the respective Members of Parliament. This is a natural and legitimate expectation. Hence for any development or welfare programme to reach out to a deprived and backward community and not get diluted or lost in the bureaucratic maze, demands due representation in the legislatures. How this can be brought about, by reservation as in the case of SCs/STs or by changing the present electoral system and adopting proportional representation or through sympathetic action by political parties needs to be given serious thought and details worked out. However it needs to be pointed out that without political empowerment, any development or welfare schemes for the Muslims will at best remain token schemes and as far as the general schemes go, what share the Muslim community will receive in the fruits of development is any body’s guess!

Table 7

Political Participation Rate

Year Total No. of Muslims in Lok Sabha % age of Muslim
Legislators
1952 489 23 4.49
1957 494 22 4.65
1962 494 22 4.45
1967 520 29 5.75
1971 518 29 5.59
1977 542 33 6.08
1980 542 49 9.04
1984 543 45 8.28
1989 543 33 6.07
1991 543 28 5.15
1996 543 27 4.97
Source: M.K.Siddiqui(ed), Muslims in Free India, pp.41.

Demographic and Health Characteristics among Social Groups

Table 8 Demographic Characteristics among Social Groups
Infant Child Total
Mortality Mortality Fertility
Rate

Religion
Hindu 77.1 32.4 2.7
Muslim 58.8 25.4 3.5
Christian 49.2 19.3 2.4

Caste/Tribe
SC 83.0 39.5 3.1
ST 84.2 46.3 3.0
OBC 76.0 29.3 2.8
Other 61.8 22.2 2.6

Source: NFHS, 1998-99

Data in Table 9 shows that only 12 percent of pregnant SC women and 6 percent of ST women have received ANC. Among the religious communities, only 8 percent of Muslims women have received ANC. The percentage of deliveries attended by untrained personnel is higher for STs than SCs (68 percent as compared to 62 percent). Data among religious groups shows that the deliveries attended by untrained personnel is the highest among Muslims. Similarly, percent of children who have received all 8 doses is the lowest among Muslims. Only one third of children belonging to Muslim community have received all the 8 doses of vaccination.

Table 9 Reproductive Health Care among Social Groups

% currently % Deliveries % children
Social Groups pregnant attended by (12-23 months)
Women untrained immunized
received personal (received all
ANC 8 doses
Caste
STs 5.7 68.1 39.5
SCs 11.6 62.4 42.6
Religion
Hindus 9.9 - 49.7
Muslims 8.0 68.5 34.5
Christians 12.3 24.5 72.8
Other Minorities 14.6 53.2 60.0

Source: India Human Development Report, 1999

Data from NFHS, 1998-99 survey shows that the percentage of women suffering from any anemia (mild, moderate or severe) is the highest among STs and SCs. Among the religious groups, percentage of women with anemia is slightly lower among muslims (50 %) compared to Hindus (52 %). Interestingly, NFHS, 1998-99 also records a lower infant mortality rate for muslims than Hindus.

Table 9

Percentage of Children under Age 3 years Classified as Undernourished on Three Anthropometric Indices of Nutritional Status, 1998-99

Social Groups India Bihar Uttar Pradesh
Wt for age% below -2SD Height for age% below -2SD Wt
for height% below -2SD Wt for age% below -2SD Height
for age% below -2SD Wt for height% below -2SD Wt for
age% below -2SD Height for age% below -2SD Wt for
height% below -2SD
Religion
Hindu 47.7 46.0 16 54.2 54 20.7 51.8 55.8 11.7
Muslim 48.3 47.1 14.1 55 53 22.1 53.1 55.3 8.8
Christian 30.8 30.6 13.4 - - - - - -

Caste/tribe
SC 53.5 51.7 16 58.5 57.6 23.1 60.3 63.1 11.5
ST 55.9 52.8 21.8 59.7 56.4 33.5 59.4 69.3 13.7
OBC 47.3 44.8 16.6 55.8 54.7 19.7 53.3 55.7 13.6
Other 41.1 40.7 12.8 43.1 45.1 18.3 45.9 50.3 9.3
Source: NFHS, 1998-99.

As can be seen from Table 9, there is not much difference in the percentage of children under 3 years of age classified as malnourished on three anthropometric indices among Hindus and Muslims. Other Measures for the welfare of the Muslims

· Insistence on making Census data easily available especially in terms of literacy/education/employment/work participation rate among Muslims. It is only when correct data is available that proper intervention can be planned. Maintaining secrecy regarding data will prove to be more counter productive, giving a place of prominence to hearsay/ myths/ stereotypes which will hardly be of any help to the community or the nation at large.

· There is an urgent need to assess the kind of problems faced by Muslim women as well as poor Muslims who are concentrated in urban slums and welfare measures need to be chalked out accordingly. However, as far as Muslim women are concerned the great desire to “reform’ the community and intervention in Muslim personal law should not become the focus for the welfare measures as these can become stumbling blocks rather than bring about any positive change.

· Organizing institutions like SEWA – to insure that the artisans get their due share in the profit of their products.

· Providing soft loans to petty traders to enable them to setup their own shops etc. Maybe some kind of a quota system could be adopted which ensures that Muslims necessarily get the required loan.

· Insistence on making Census data easily available especially in terms of literacy/education/employment/work participation rate among Muslims. It is only when correct data is available that proper intervention can be planned. Maintaining secrecy regarding data will prove to be more counter productive, giving a place of prominence to hearsay/ myths/ stereotypes which will hardly be of any help to the community or the nation at large.

· A fair representation of Muslims on Boards which grant affiliations /aid/loans etc.

· Setting up machinery /disaster management network consisting of Muslims in adequate numbers to look after victims of communal riots and work towards rehabilitation and compensation.

· Regulate funds sponsored by the Waqf board to look after the needs of Muslim women (divorcees/widows) who do not have any other means of income or support.

· Muslim representation in the Police/PAC/ Army, etc.

· Organizing programmes for teachers/police/govt.officials-sensitizing them towards the needs of the minority.

· The Bureaucracy needs to be sensitized to deal with special problems of the Muslims, both at the policy making level and at the implementation level.

· Tabling the Reports of the Minority Commission in parliament on an annual basis and making it public so that policy makers/bureaucrats etc are familiar with the kind of grievances of the Muslims and are not misled by biased media reporting.

· Right to information should be the backbone of any welfare measure. This would imply that information concerning jobs, availability of govt. schemes, educational facilities, etc. should be available to the different communities in their language. This would mean that govt. advertisements regarding the above should reach speakers of different languages and not remain confined to the English and Hindi medium readers. Its only when information is available that people would be able to access different facilities. For example, if advertisements for courses in various colleges or information regarding vacancies are released only in English and Hindi dailies those reading, for example Urdu and Punjabi newspapers would be left out and therefore basic information gets denied to them. This is then not a case for equality of educational opportunity.

· Location of schools/banks/colleges/universities contributes in a major way to who access them. Therefore there should be a concerted effort made to ensure that a sufficient number of such institutions are opened / located in areas which can be easily accessed by the Muslims.

§ Development of industries and opportunities for work should be created in areas of Muslim concentration to enable them to get employment.

--------------------------------
Notes:

1. Bose, Ashish(1997) Population profile of Religion in India. Delhi: B.R. Publishing Corporation.

2. Massey, James(1998). Studies in Educational and socio-economic problems of the Minorities in India. A Report of the National Commission for Minorities.

3. Shariff, Abusaleh (2000). ‘Relative Economic and Social Deprivation in India.’ Paper presented at an international seminar on ‘Multi-dimensional definition of poverty in India and Latin America’, held at the International Development Centre, Oxford University, Oxford, October 27-28,2000.

4. Massey, James, op.cit.

5. Shariff, Abusaleh(1995)Socio-economic and Demographic Differentials between Hindus and Muslims in India, EPW, November 18,1995 and Razzack, Azra and Gumber, Anil, Differentials in Human Development : A Case Empowerment of Muslims in India. Paper presented at a seminar organised by the NCAER, in November, 2000.

6. National Commission for Minorities (1998-1999) Annual Report (un-tabled), pg. 27.

7. Shariff, Abusaleh(1999). India Human Development Report. A Profile of Indian states in the 1990’s. New Delhi: Oxford university Press, pp.121.

8. Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (1986). National Policy on Education. Government of India, Ministry of Human Resource Development (1986).

9. Sikand, Yogendra (1996). ‘The Myth of Muslim Appeasement’. The Bulletin of the Henry Martyn Institute of Islamic Studies, January-June 1996, pg. 9.

10. Das, Arvind (1992). India Invented. A Nation in the Making. Delhi : Manohar Publishers, pg. 99.

11. National Commission for Minorities (1998), op. cit., pg. 27.

12. Quoted in Zakaria, Rafiq (1995). The Widening Divide. An Insight into Hindu Muslim Relations. New Delhi: Penguin Books India.

13. Razzack, Azra and Gumber, Anil, ‘Differentials in Human Development: A Case for Empowerment of Muslims in India’. Paper presented at an international seminar in New Delhi, November, 2000.

A Brief Survey of Communal Situation in the Post Babri-Demolition Period

A BRIEF SURVEY OF COMMUNAL SITUATION IN THE POST BABRI-DEMOLITION PERIOD
December 1-15, 2001
by Asghar Ali Engineer

It is about 10 years since demolition of Babri Masjid on 6th December 1992. The demolition of Babri Masjid itself was a major event, which seriously dented our commitment to secularism. The demolition also created a serious crisis of identity for Indian Muslims and resulted in earth-shaking riots in Mumbai and number of other places in India. In this article we will take a brief look at the communal situation in India in the post-Babri demolition period.

As pointed out above the demolition of Babri Masjid was followed by outburst of communal violence throughout India particularly in Bombay, Ahmedabad, Surat, Calcutta, Kanpur, Malegaon, Bhopal, Delhi and several other places in which hundreds of people lost their lives. In fact the whole decade of eighties and early nineties was a period of great communal crisis.

As it is well-known the Ram Mandir controversy was purely political one; it was neither religious nor even historical in nature. Most eminent historians belonging to secular schools of thought maintained firmly that there is absolutely no historical or archaeological proof for existence of any temple at the site of the Babri mosque. When confronted with the historical and archaeological arguments the Sangh Parivar leaders changed the line of arguments and started saying that it is not historical matter alone, it is basically a matter of faith for the Hindus.

However, in this article we are more concerned with the post-Babri demolition decade and communal situation therein than all these endless arguments. As pointed out the Ram Mandir controversy was raised only to polarise votes between Hindus and Muslims. And there is no doubt that the BJP was great political beneficiary of this controversy. It went on increasing its seats in parliament thanks to the Ram Mandir controversy and through strategic alliances in the elections. It had increased its strength from two to 88 seats in Parliament in 1989 elections itself with the help of this controversy and through alliance with V.P.Singh's Janata Dal and other secular parties. In 1991 elections this controversy was at its height and the BJP further increased its strength from 89 to 114.

The Narsimha Rao Government, however, continued for full term until 1996. In this election though the BJP increased its strength further. However, it was isolated from other secular parties. It tried to form its government on the basis of being the largest party and hoped that once it forms government other 'secular' parties will be tempted to support it for temptation of power. However, until then the secular parties considered the BJP as really untouchable and refused to come to its rescue. Thus the BJP Government failed after 13 days in existence. And Janata Dal was invited to take the reins of power as it managed to gather necessary strength in parliament.

Then it appeared as if the secular parties cared for ideology and refused to compromise with communal forces. But this situation lasted but for a short period and soon number of 'secular' parties teamed up with the BJP to ride piggyback to power. It is true that in the post-modernist world ideologies have lost all meaning. However, religious ideologies are gaining in strength and hence religious fundamentalism has gained in strength all over the globe. In India Hindu fundamentalism, as in Pakistan Islamic fundamentalism has gained in strength considerably. But for temptation for power by these secular parties the BJP would not have been in a position to lead the NDA coalition.

Meanwhile the Shiv Sena -BJP alliance came to power in Maharashtra. It is interesting to note that under the Congress Government at the Centre and in Maharashtra the Muslims had suffered so much that in sheer desperation a small section of Muslims voted for the Shiv Sena candidates. Their argument was that it is better to deal with a known enemy than with a hidden enemy. There was also another contributory factor to the victory of Shiv Sena-BJP alliance in 1995.

Angered by the 1992-93 riots in Mumbai in which about 1000 people had died or disappeared, some anti-social elements allegedly led by Dawood Ibrahim and it's cohorts and aided and abetted by Pakistan's ISI. It naturally had greatly angered the people of Maharashtra. The Government in Maharshtra at that time was of the Congress and was headed by Shri Sharad Pawar. Also the Shiv Sena made several promises to the voters like providing free houses to the slum dwellers of Mumbai. All this combined the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance won the 1995 assembly elections.

The BJP of course cashed in on the Ram Mandir sentiments. The Maharashtra was one of the most affected states by the Ram Mandir controversy. The RSS was after all founded by a section of Brahmins in Maharshtra. The Success of the Shiv Sena-BJP alliance was partly the result of Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi controversy. The bomb blast in March 1993, which was result of Mumbai riots of 1992-93 also, as pointed out, contributed to the success of Shiv Sena-BJP alliance in Maharashtra.

COMMUNAL VIOLENCE IN POST-BABRI DEMOLITION PERIOD

It is interesting to note that the number of major communal riots in post-Babri Masjid demolition period went down considerably. Three major riots took place in this period, besides several small riots in which 2 to 6 persons were killed. These three major riots are Coimbatore in in Tamilnadu in1997, Kanpur in U.P. in March 2001 and Malegaon in Maharashtra in October 2001. In Coimbatore riots more than 40 persons were killed while in Kanpur and Malegaon more than 15 persons were killed. In between these major riots more than 150 small riots have taken place throughout India since the Mumbai riots of 1992-93.

However, absence of major riots should not delude us to conclude that the communal situation has eased in India in the post-Babri demolition period. Far from it. It has, on the contrary worsened. Two important trends are quite noticeable in this period. The South India which was relatively free of communalism and communal violence began to experience outburst of communal violence. Thus the Coimbatore communal riot and subsequent bomb blast there during February 1998 is symptomatic of this. The Coimbatore communal riot was result of aggressive communal propaganda by the Hindu Munnani which gave rise to some Muslim youth taking to path of violence to pay the Hindu Munnani in the same coin. Some Muslim youth murdered RSS activists and the Hinud Munnani people murdered Palani Baba, a Muslim saint who was allegedly the inspiration of the Muslim fundamentalist youth. Ms. Jaylalitha also tried to take advantage of the situation and adopted rather pro-Hindutva stance. It is alleged that the Hindu Munnani got political support from her.

The second noticeable trend was anti-Christian attacks after the BJP came to power in Gujrat and after the BJP-led Government consolidated its power at the Centre. The attacks on Christians were not known earlier. Communal riots usually took place between Hindus and Muslims. However, since 1998 anti-Christian violence began and mainly the VHP and Bajrang Dal were involved in these attacks on Christians. After Gujrat number of incidents took place in U.P., Maharashtra, M.P., Bihar and Orissa. Orissa witnessed the ghastly incident of burning alive of a Christian priest Father Grahm Staines and his two young children at the hands of Bajrang Dal activists. The Wadhwa Commission report also concluded that Bajrang Dal had a hand in this ghastly incident.

The Gujrat also witnessed number of anti-Muslim incidents particularly in the rural areas after the BJP assumed power in Gujrat. The BJP adopted most aggressive communal stance in Gujrat in the post-Babri demolition period. The Bajrang Dal and VHP cadres adopted very aggressive stance against Christian and Muslim minorities in that highly communalised state.

Since the BJP came to power at the Centre it has to be rather cautious in communal matters to keep the alliance together. Various secular partners of the National Democratic Front have to care for their minority, especially Muslim voters in their respective states, particularly in Andhra Pradesh. It, therefore, keeps out of the Hindutva agenda, which still includes construction of Ram temple in Ayodhya. But the other constituents of the Sangh Parivar like the Vishwa Hindu Parishad have no such constraints. Thus its office bearers like Mr. Singhal and Pravin Togaria openly talk of starting the construction of Ram temple at Ayodhya from March 2002. The Sangh Parivar is not only keeping the issue alive but is also exploiting it for the forthcoming elections in U.P. in early 2002.

Since the NDA Government led by BJP has come to power the education system has been greatly communalised. It is well known policy of the BJP to take over most sensitive like Human Resource Ministry which not only controls education but also premier research institutions like the ICHR, ICSSR, NCERT etc. All these key research institutions have now been taken over by the hard core RSS elements. All key research projects are being now monopolised by them. The important Towards Freedom volumes which were critical of the RSS role during freedom struggle and its pro-British stance were suddenly withdrawn from publication. Also, the school text books are being tempered with. Recently the CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) suddenly has issued circular to edit out certain portions of history text books written by noted secular historians like Romila Thapar, R.S.Sharma, Bipan Chandra and Satish Chandra. Such selective withdrawal will help indoctrination of young minds and will be prohibitive of encouraging critical understanding of history. The communal forces often temper with history and project the past uncritically as the golden era particularly the past dominated by the majority community rulers and denounce whole sale the past if dominated by minority community rulers.

CONCLUSION

There is no doubt that India has been passing through very critical period in the post-Babri demolition period as far as its secular polity is concerned. Not only political but also social and cultural space has been communalised. The eighties of course witnessed major communal riots but the BJP began to acquire strength by raising historical controversy like the Ramjanambhoomi and communalised politics as never before. But after it came to power as a major partner of NDA it began to monopolise the educational and cultural space which is much more harmful. The Sangh Parivar in U.P. did not allow shooting of the film Water whose script was approved by the Home Ministry. Indian cultural space is being increasingly communalised. Secular space in the fields of education and culture is of vital importance for unity and integrity of India. A long term damage will be done to Indian unity if socio-cultural spaces come under communal ideology. All secular forces should come together to prevent this.

And now terrorist attack in Malegaon - What is the way out?

By Asghar Ali Engineer

The terrorist attack in Malegaon on sacred day of Shab-e-Bara’t was as horrible as that on trains in Mumbai on 11th July. It is not important how many were killed in Mumbai train blasts and how many in Malegaon blasts, what is important is recklessness with which innocent citizens are targeted in such brutal attacks. In Mumbai those killed were returning from their day’s work and those killed in Malegaon had gathered for prayer on the sacred day of their religion. Some were there begging on the occasion.

As of now there is no clue as to who planted bombs on trains in Mumbai and on cycles near Bada Qabrastan and mosque in Malegaon. As for blasts in Mumbai is concerned the police is working on the theory that Lashkar-I-Taiyyiba aided and abetted by ISI of Pakistan was responsible and this assumptions seems justified though there are no solid proofs yet available.

However, as for Malegaon blasts are concerned police seems to be tight-lipped or indicating role of Pakistan-based terrorist organisation. But this does not seem to be justified. The only reason for this assumption is that probably RDX along with nitrite was used and the triggering device also seems to be similar to the one often used by Pakistan-based organisations.

Still laboratory reports have not been used and presence of RDX has not been confirmed. But even if use of RDX is confirmed it should not be assumed that it is Pakistan-based terrorist organisation, which is likely to be involved. Selection of the day of Shab-e- Bara’t and places like Qabrastan and Mosque on the day of Friday at 2 p.m. when people were coming out of the mosque after Friday prayer clearly indicated that no Muslim organisation could be involved.

As it would be unthinkable that Hindutva organisations were involved in the Mumbai train blasts, it would be equally unthinkable that some Muslim organisation was involved in the Malegaon blasts. Unfortunately the police is equivocating on this question and is still thinking on the lines that some Pakistan-based organisation is involved. In the case of Mumbai blasts it immediately came to conclusion that it is some Pakistan-based organisation, which is involved and began to detain or arrest various suspects.

The Police, however, is yet to start its investigation on the assumption that some Hindutva organisations are likely to be involved. It seems to be quite uncertain. It is wrong to assume that the only source of RDX is ISI of Pakistan. There are people in India who also can make this deadly explosive available and it is not difficult to get the know-how for making timer devices. It does not involve very sophisticated technology. Anyone can easily make it. The Maharashtra police have to take bold initiative in this matter without fear or favour.

The people of Malegaon, like the people of Mumbai need to be complimented for their patience in maintaining communal harmony after the blasts. As in Mumbai hundreds of Muslims rushed to help their Hindu sisters and brothers, in case of Malegaon the Hindus rushed to help their Muslim sisters and brothers. Unlike Mumbai, Malegaon is extremely sensitive town with 75 per cent Muslim population. Yet, Hindus and Muslims showed tremendous courage and patience in remaining calm and maintaining communal harmony.

Post-Gujarat, people of India have shown much more maturity than before and now having lost mass following communal and fundamentalist forces are terrorising people through bomb blasts which handful of people can manage to do. The modern devices are so deadly that a small group can manage to kill hundreds by planting these killer devices. Thus no act of violence on the part of one group will go unavenged on the part of another community.

Peace was never so urgent as today. Such killings to avenge killings by the other group will continue to take lives of thousands of innocent people. We must show wisdom to put an end to such senseless killings sooner than later. Series of measures are needed to bring an end to such dastardly killings. I would like to suggest following measures to achieve concrete results:

1) All political parties in India must resolve to put an end to communal violence. We saw that Mumbai riots in 1992-93 in post-Babri demolition ultimately resulted in Mumbai bomb blasts in March 1993 in which 270 innocent lives were lost. Post-Gujarat carnage series of attacks and bomb blasts took place culminating in bomb blasts on trains on 11th July in Mumbai. A force calling itself the Gujarat Revenge Force took responsibility for some of these blasts.

2) Our education system needs to be drastically overhauled. Education system unfortunately is still part of the problem than part of the solution. The way medieval history is taught generates hatred between Hindus and Muslims. Most of the teachers in schools are communally oriented. Also, there is no emphasis on values in our education system. It needs to be made value-oriented.

3) It is matter of great concern that our primary education does not emphasise importance of our secular democracy. Secular democracy is the sheet anchor of our polity and great emphasis should be laid on this.

4) Also, our country is multi-religious and multi-cultural and the values of multi-culturalism should be taught to students. Even in Europe, which was mono-religious until recently and is multi-cultural today emphasis is being laid on multi-culturalism in their education system. Pluralism and multi-culturalism should become part of our educational system.

5) Today people think religion is part of problem and religion is cause of division in the society. We should emphasise that religion is a rich resource for peace and not conflict. The commonality of values in all religious traditions should be emphasised.

6) This year we are celebrating hundred years of Gandhiji’s launching of Satyagraha in South Africa. Unfortunately Gandhi and Gandhian values hardly find mention in our education and political system. Gandhiji made a seminar contribution to political theory and practice by emphasising Satygraha and on-violence as the real essence of democracy. Many people, as a recent survey shows, do not even know the name of Gandhi, let alone his contribution to our freedom struggle.

Also, our democracy has become divisive rather than integrative. In order to target votes of this or that community and this or that caste, divisiveness in emphasised thus delivering a serious blow to our secularism and multi-culturalism. The British parliamentary system involving first past the poll system has become a great problem for us. We must adopt other forms like proportional representation or make it compulsory to obtain 51% votes to be declared elected.

Making 51% votes compulsory for getting elected will promote inclusiveness and not divisiveness as in the present system of first past the poll system. Communal polarisation has increased tremendously when casteist and communal forces targeted this or that caste and community for getting their candidates elected. This is very unfortunate. The British Parliamentary system was evolved for a mono-religious and mono-cultural society. India was always a pluralist country.

While we can justly be proud of our secular democracy, it has remained more formal than substantial and in a multi-religious society to make secular democracy more substantial all castes and communities (religious, cultural as well as lingual) should feel that justice is being done to them in share in power and economic development. It is sense of injustice that breeds violent attitudes towards those who are seen to be monopolising the fruits of power and economic development. Peace cannot be established through slogans but through justice.

We must get rid of caste and communal biases in our political as well as administrative system. Caste and communal biases ultimately result in violent outbursts of anger at one or the other time. Gandhiji emphasised Satyagraha as an integral part of non-violent struggle as truth and non-violence are integral to each other. But when we were fighting against British rulers, we had a sense of mission but today there is no such sense of mission any more and hence it is difficult to promote Satyagrah, a truth-based struggle for justice.

Until yesterday foreign rulers were exploiting us and today our own people are doing so and hence it is very difficult and challenging to launch such struggle or at least it will be difficult to involve all people into it as our own people are doing injustices and hence only victims of injustice can take part in Satyagraha. Our politics today is entirely power-oriented, neither value nor issue oriented.

For Satyagraha to be possible politics has to be value as well as issue-oriented as during the freedom struggle. Today our politics has nothing to do with values and issues and hence much greater challenge for promoting Gandhiji’s form of struggle. But let us realise non-violence, as a value in democracy is the only way out. Otherwise let us be ready for disasters like Mumbai riots and bomb blasts like Mumbai and Malegaon.

Attack on Taslima: love of Islam or love of power?

By Asghar Ali Engineer

It was shocking that three MLAs of Majlis Ittahidul Muslimin in Hyderabad gate crashed into the book release function of her book “Lajja” translated into Telugu on 9th August and tried to beat up Taslima and shouted slogans using unbecoming words, even using abusing language. And all this in the name of Islam as if Islam stands for such hooliganism.

The party leadership instead of condemning such wayward behaviour, approved of it and patted them on back. They were even given hero’s welcome. One MLA even said that if Taslima comes to Hyderabad again, she will be beheaded. If elected representatives take law into their own hands, there cannot be greater tragedy. If they had done it without invoking Islam, it would have been a different story, though equally condemnable.

Was this for love of Islam? No way. It was love of power, pure and simple. The Party leadership thought it is good opportunity to strengthen and widen its electoral base. Human behaviour, especially political behaviour is extremely complex. Politicians, while acting in self-interest, invoke high ideals in order to cover up their utterly selfish motives.

Some Imam even declared from Calcutta that he would pay Rs.50,000/- if anyone blackens Taslima’s face. An Imam is supposed to be very respectable and responsible person who leads people in namaz (prayer) but also leads them in social and political matters. An Imam’s behaviour should be highly restrained and responsible. I totally disagree with Taslima’s views and think she is completely ignorant about Qur’anic teachings but that does not give anyone right to violently attack her or incite people to attack her.

Apart from the fact that such hooliganism is morally reprehensible it is unwise from the viewpoint of those who are opposed to Taslima’s attacks on Islam. This gives her much more publicity that she deserves. Now this attack that took place in Hyderabad will give her worldwide publicity on one hand, and would make her celebrity in the eyes of those who are already hostile to Islam. Now reams and reams of papers will be blackened in her praise.

She would also be now much more hostile to Islam than ever before. She would really hate Islam because of hooliganism of some members of Ittihadul Muslimin. If we really love Islam then we should try to win her heart and soul through love and compassion. And that is what the Prophet of Islam did. It is well known story that a Jewish woman who hated the Prophet (PBUH) used to throw garbage on him whenever he passed from below her house. Once when she did not throw garbage on him, he inquired why she did not and was told she is sick. He immediately went to inquire about her health. She was so moved that immediately accepted Islam then and there.

What a contrast! Those who claim to love Prophet and Islam are attacking a woman and making her hate Islam more than before. This is madness, not wise behaviour and must be condemned as strongly as possible. These MLAs and crowd accompanied them have brought utter shame to Islam and Muslims. It is heartening that many religious leaders of Muslims and intellectuals have condemned it. Maulana Mustaqim of Jamiat –ul-Ulama-i-Hind, Shiah leader Maulana Ather Abbas Rizvi and several others have strongly condemned attack on Taslima Nasreen.

The book which was being released in Hyderabad had nothing to do with Islam. It was Telugu translation of her book on persecution of Hindu minority in Bangla Desh. After demolition of Babri Masjid like hooligans of Hindutva attacked Muslims all over India and engineered communal violence in number of cities and killed Muslims, the hooligans of Jamat-e-Islami of Bangla Desh attacked Hindus and demolished their temples and set fire to their houses. In Lajja (shame) she has condemned all this. Do we Muslims not heave sigh of relief when some fair-minded Hindus stand by Muslims when Hindu communal forces attack us? Should we not stand by fair-minded Muslims of Bangla Desh if they stand by Hindu minority?

It is true Taslima has written provocative articles on Islam. We must counter it by arguing on the basis of Qur’an rather than attacking her physically, and in very dignified language befitting a true Muslim. No one can cite a single verse of Qur’an or any hadith to support violence against others, even enemies, as long as they are peaceful. On the other hand we can cite several verses from the Qur’an, to support dignified behaviour.

The Qur’an says, “Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner” (16:125). Again what a contrast –the hooligans of Ittihadul Muslimin beat up a woman and other journalists and others present there. Also, Allah says in the Qur’an “..do not be aggressors, Allah does not love aggressors.” (2:190). And even if a Muslim renounces Islam and becomes unbeliever, no one has right to punish him/her except Allah.

“Those who believe”, says Qur’an, “then disbelieve, again believe and again disbelieve, then increase in disbelief, Allah is not referring to any punishment for those who repeatedly believe and disbelieve and increase in disbelief, let alone human beings punishing them of their own. Even if Taslima has ceased to believe and has increased in her disbelief, no one has any right among human beings to punish her. It is matter of her conscience. All one can do is to dialogue with her in dignified way and then leave it to her conscience

II

Democracies in socially backward countries like India face an acute dilemma. The entire functioning of democracy depends on rights of people and freedom of conscience and right to believe or disbelieve. Both individual and collective rights are sacred in democracy. However, politicians greedy for votes of illiterate masses, and even educated middle class people, try to incite religious feelings and get their votes. Most of the politicians find this easy way to legislative assemblies or Parliament. They emerge as champions of this or that religion and grab their votes.

This is what the Sangh Parivar did by launching an aggressive movement for Ramjanambhoomi and demolished Babri Masjid and took pride in that act of lawlessness and destruction. The Sangh leaders launched not only aggressive campaign but Sangh leaders like Uma Bharti and Sadhvi Rithambara used abusive language against Muslims and the Government did nothing. They allowed hate campaign to go on.

If the authorities had taken stiff action against Uma Bharti and Rithambara, it would have sent a strong signal to all others that they cannot get away with such aggressive campaigns against all norms of democracy. Democracy cannot succeed without following rule of law. If Uma Bharti and Rithambara had been punished, MLAs of Ittihadul Muslimin would not have dared to indulge in this hooliganism.

However, as the Swedish scholar who wrote Asian Drama observed India’s is the soft government and refuses to act until all damage is done. Taslima Nasreen’s attackers also got away with symbolic arrest and were released on bail immediately thereafter. It speaks volumes about our indifferent approach and also fear of votes.

So many communal riots take place because no guilty in the riots is ever punished. All of them know this and have nothing to care for consequences. And riots keep on taking place. Mumbai riots more than 800 persons were killed, many of them most brutally and yet state is extremely reluctant to act lest Shiv Sena may not approve of it. Can this ever be the reason for not acting at all for a democratic government?

This is indeed bad omen for Indian democracy. The people involved in such public crimes must be severely punished to send strong message that hooliganism will not be tolerated in any case. Rule of law must be applied under any circumstances. Politicians should not be allowed to incite people publicly to indulge in mayhem and murder. This is repeatedly happening in our democracy.

It is heartening sign that many religious personalities among Muslims and secular intellectuals among them have come out strongly condemning this attack on Taslima Nasreen. Still many columnists, even waiting for a day started demanding where are those Muslims and secularists who immediately condemn Hindutvawadis but keep quiet when some Muslim fanatics indulge in such extremist action. Many such columnists will come out with many such articles and further aggravate feelings in majority community.

We are not a mature democracy and should come out against any act of hooliganism and violence whosoever perpetrates it, Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs or Christians. We must promote zero tolerance towards any act of violence. It should be our litmus test. If we want to enjoy fruits of secular democracy we must shed all forms of partisan feelings. Politicisation of religion in our democracy has already done enough damage. How much more damage we want to inflict?

Is any one listening?

BJP's anti-Muslimism

By Asghar Ali Engineer

The CD controversy in U.P. election has proved once again, if any proof is needed, how much BJP hates Muslims. BJP's anti-Muslim record has touched new heights. How can any politically responsible party taking part in democratic election and taking oath for secularism, can produce such propaganda stuff. The CD is full of hate for Muslims and uses very derogatory language. The only parallel one can find is Nazi's hate of Jews, no other example could be found.

It celebrates any anti-Muslim measure or judgement. Recently when the single judge of Allahabad High Court declared Muslims in U.P. as not being a minority, the BJP spokesperson immediately welcomed the judgement as refutation of Congress party's "minorityism"and vindication of BJP's stand. No other party welcomed the judgement and all other party's except the BJP criticised the judgement as unfair. The Judge had simply pronounced the judgement, which was not even relevant to the petition before him and he had not even given reasons for the judgement he delivered. The judgement was even against what the Supreme Court had held in TMA Pai Foundation judgement.

Right from post-independence days Muslims have been taken as constituting minority, though most major one. No one had ever expressed any doubt about it. The Supreme Court had held that any religious community less than 50% in number shall be deemed to be a minority and any all India -minority will also be deemed to be minority in any state. Also, as claimed by the honourable judge of Allahabad High Court, there are no such references in the Constitutional Assembly debates to prove that Muslims are not a minority in U.P. or any other state of Union of India.

Before all these matters were gone into, BJP immediately welcomed the judgement and treated it as vindication of its stand on minorityism. One can as well tell BJP that the Congress whether indulges in minorityism or not BJP certainly indulges in anti-Muslimism. It whole-heartedly welcomes any anti-Muslim measure most enthusiastically.

In fact during the entire campaign for Ramjanmabhoomi BJP and many of its individual members like Sadhvi Rithambara and others indulged in most vicious anti-Muslim campaign. Cheap rhetoric of all Muslims being "Babar ki Aulad" (Babar's children) was indulged in without any restraint. Uma Bharti and Rithambara used most abusive language against Muslims throughout Ramjanmaboomi campaign until Babri Masjid was demolished by a frenzied mob and when Masjid was demolished BJP leaders hugged each other in joy and celebrated the day as day of Diwali. Crackers were burst, especially in U.P. throughout that night.

Even today the Sangh Parivar celebrates it as "Shaurya Divas" (day of bravery) whereas whole country observes it as a tragic day in the history of secular India. And all this after the leaders of Jan Sangh, which was re-christened as Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) had taken a vow on Gandhiji's Samadhi of following principles of Gandhian socialism and secularism. Soon after taking this oath in 1980 it started its anti-Muslim campaign describing constitutional secularism as pseudo-secularism and accused the Congress for indulging in "minorityism" and fought subsequent elections with those slogans.

I sincerely advise BJP leaders to rename the party as BHP (Bhartiya Hindu Party) as it always excludes Muslims from people of India. Had it been sincerely Bhartiya Janata Party, it would have never adopted such anti-Muslim attitude towards Indian Muslims. Thus Hindu Mahasabha is more sincere in its ideology as it clearly designates itself as Hindu Party caring only for Hindu interests. And to this extent Hindu Mahasabha leaders disagree with BJP because the important word "Hindu" is missing though it claims to be looking after Hindu interests.

The BJP leaders are trying to disown the CD under question only after the Election Commission took a strong view of the contents of the CD and said it is likely to promote disharmony between religious communities and issued notice to the BJP why action should not be taken against it. We congratulate the courage and principled stand taken by the Election Commission on this issue. It was overdue. Many prominent citizens have petitioned the Election Commission to de-recognise BJP as a political party as it always indulges in campaigns which endangers national unity and integrity.

Anyway any party, which publicly proclaims "Hindutva Agenda" cannot be a secular party which it avows to be. Hindutva or Islamism in political arena for that matter cannot be in conformity with secularism. Secularism is basically a political doctrine. All political parties have to conform to secularism as a political philosophy and Election Commission requires all candidates filing nomination to take oath for secularism and political parties also have to declare their acceptance of it. How can then a party proclaiming "Hindutva"doctrine be accepted as secular? It defies common sense.

The BJP often quotes one Judge Supreme Court Judgement that "Hindutva" is a way of life. It may be so but it cannot be political way of life as our political way is nothing but secular, devoid of, or neutral to, any religious way of life or doctrines or interests only of one religion or followers thereof.

How can building a Ram Temple be agenda of a secular political party though uniform civil code and abolition of Article 370 are quite secular in nature? Building Ram temple, howsoever desirable for any religious organisation, can certainly not be a political agenda of any political party operating within secular framework of our Constitution of which secularism is the fundamental structure. It is Supreme Court judgement in Golaknath case that secularism is fundamental structure of the Constitution which cannot be changed even by another Constituent Assembly.

The CD produced by the BJP (its denial carries no conviction as during its release function senior leaders like Tandon and even BJP president Rajnath Singh were allegedly present) for its U.P. election campaign once again proves convincingly that it is not a secular party and is basically anti-Muslim in character. It uses very derogatory words for Muslims saying therein they marry four wives and produce 35 pillas, a derogatory Hindi word for unwanted children.

The contents of the CD are highly surprising. The Sangh Parivar even otherwise has been regularly propagating that Muslims marry four wives and produces 25 children (its campaign puts it as ham panch, hamare pacchis - we five our twenty five). Vishwa Hindu Parishad had taken out Ekatma Yatra in 1985 across the country and during this Yatra had distributed hundreds of thousands of such pamphlets.

How absurd is this propaganda that every Muslim marries four wives when the male-female ratio in our country is 935 female for 1000 male. And central Government survey conducted in 1997 shows that Muslims are at the bottom of those who practice polygamy. Muslims practicing bigamy or polygamy are just 5.2% whereas 5.8% upper caste Hindus

Practice bigamy or polygamy. The tribals, dalits and Jains constitute even higher percentage of bigamous or polygamous marriage.

It is also wrong that no Muslim practices family planning and produces host of children. In 14 states family planning among Muslims is higher than that of Hindus. In Kerala family planning among Muslims is 64% as against just 35% among Hindus in U.P. In Pondicherry too family planning among Muslims is of the order of 85 per cent. This kind of cheap propaganda that Muslims marry four wives and produce 35 children does not behove an all India political party which aspires to come to power at the Centre.

Also, BJP claims to be most patriotic of all other parties. How can BJP be patriotic when it hates the largest minority of the country which is nearly 140 million in number? Mr. Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of Gujarat always talks of five crores of Gujaratis' asmita and makes it absolutely difficult for Muslims to live life of dignity and security. Even today Muslims in Gujarat are living as secondary citizens and most of the villages in Gujarat declare proudly 'you are welcome in village in Hindu Rashtra'.

It is unfortunate that even Union Government has never taken notice of such sign boards in hundreds of Gujarat villages. And on top of this Rajasthan text book of 12th standard tells its students that fascism is better than democracy as under fascism leader can take right decisions while in democracy it is not possible. It is also well known that the Sangh Parivar, particularly the RSS admires Hitler.

And one knows what relations exist between the RSS and BJP. BJP cannot defy any of the RSS dictates. Who knows this better than Mr. L.K.Advani who was removed as president of BJP just because he expressed his opinion about Jinnah in Pakistan. Do we need any more proofs for declaring BJP as non-secular, approving of fascism and targeting minorities? Can our democratic secular political culture allow such party to function within the parameters of our Constitution?

It is high time the Election Commission takes serious notice of all this and takes appropriate action under the People's Representation Act so that our democratic and secular culture remains unpolluted.

Bomb blasts in Mumbai : crossing the limits

By Asghar Ali Engineer

It was indeed terrible Tuesday (11/7/06) when innocent commuters going back home after hard day’s work were targeted with bomb blast from Matunga to Bhayandar on western suburban trains in Mumbai. So far the death toll is more than 200 and about 700 people injured, many of them quite severely. No words are enough to condemn such horrible crime against humanity. No one who has even elementary sense of being human will commit such dastardly act.

Same day in the morning eight persons lost their lives in Srinagar, five of them tourists from West Bengal. Grenades were thrown at the tourist bus proceeding towards Pahalgam. Why these killings? Who is behind it? Earlier violence was mostly confined to Kashmir Valley. Now this has spread to various cities of North India, Delhi, Varanasi, Ayodhya and Mumbai. Mumbai witnessed such horrifying bomb blasts second time, first time in March 1993 in which more than 250 innocent people lost their lives.

Some people think, as many Kashmiris thought in 1989, that violence is the only way out and if they take to guns, azadi will be near at hand. Now after loosing 80 thousand people they have realised what repercussions use of violence has. ‘Azadi’ is as far away as it ever was for Kashmiris and all they have gained is violence and more violence. Peace now is as elusive as azadi itself.

We can very well realise the wisdom of Gandhiji’s insistence on non-violence for attaining freedom for India from clutches of British imperialism. No one believed Gandhiji when he talked of achieving India’s freedom through non-violence. Even Churchill, the then Prime Minister of Britain, talked of Gandhiji with scorn and said what this ‘naked faqir’ can do to mighty British empire on whom sun does not set.

The world saw that the naked faqir and his non-violence shook the British Empire and got freedom for India. Generally people think that oppressed are justified in using violence and secondly that without using violence one cannot achieve liberation from the oppressors. However, one forgets that while violence is physical, non-violence is moral and spiritual. While the oppressed may not be able to match violence of the oppressor, non-violence gives the oppressed moral superiority and puts the oppressor to shame.

However, it is not easy to practice non-violence for an ordinary person. It requires tremendous inner discipline. Thus in Gandhiji’s theory of non-violence there is equally important concept of what he called satyagraha (insistence on truth) and this requires tremendous patience. Thus non-violence, insistence on truth and patience, all go together and this has appeal of its own and if practiced honestly, it can achieve tremendous results as Gandhiji showed.

Interestingly, Gandhiji’s concept comes very close to the Qur’anic teaching of truth and patience (haq and sabr) as enshrined in chapter 103. It is great shame that the so called ‘jihadis are committing such dastardly acts of violence in the name of Islam. Nothing can be more un-Islamic than these horrifying inhuman acts. This game is being played for power and pelf by the section of Pakistani army. These terrorists cannot carry on such powerful blasts without the support of ISI of Pakistan. Lashkar-I-Tayyiba, which is suspected to be behind such acts cannot sustain itself without active help from ISI. Though Lashkar-I-Taiyyibah has not claimed responsibility for bombing on trains on Tuesday neither police has reached any decisive conclusion but all available indications point in that direction.

Nawaz Sharif, the Ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan has said in his recently published biography that ISI is not under government control and has been trying to de-stabilise India and Bangla Desh. He is certainly in know of things in Pakistan and what he says cannot be lightly dismissed.

It is such a matter of shame that Pakistan, which claims to be an Islamic state is bringing shame and disgrace to Islam. No other Islamic country is home to so many terrorists as Pakistan is. Pakistan also has become a front state for all American designs, which further fuels violence and creates more terrorists. In fact if Pakistan is true to Islam than it should have been heaven of peace. The prophet of Islam made peace central to Islamic teachings.

He accepted peace treaty of Hudaibiyah, which was thought to be humiliating by most of his close companions and yet the Prophet (PBUH) insisted on accepting the treaty as it led to establishing peace. What better noble example than this? But these terrorists feel no pang of conscience in killing innocent citizens. Even according to the rules of Shari’ah, non-combatants cannot be killed. These rules are precursors to the Geneva Agreement, which was drawn up hundreds of years after these Shari’ah rule.

However, it is these Muslims who are openly defying these Shari’ah rules in the name of Islam. What could be more condemnable? Also how can one say that one needs jihad for taking Kashmir? Jihad is not meant for conquering territory it is for defending oneself, if attacked and for controlling ones evil desires. The Qur’an specifically prohibits any war of aggression. It clearly says, “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you. Do not commit aggression; Allah does not love aggressors.� (2:190)

And in throwing bombs and killing innocent people they are doubly guilty: they are aggressing against those who are not aggressors and over and above that they are killing non-combatants. Thus they are violating every injunction of Islam and ironically in the name of Islam. They have named their armed groups as “Lashkar-I-Tayyiba� (Holy Army) and “Jaish-I-Mohammad� (the Army of Mohammad, peace be upon him). How can an army which kills innocent people be a holy army or army of Holy Prophet. Those who commit such inhuman deeds can never deserve to be called holy army or army of Mohammad (PBUH).

And as for jihad, it has never been used in the sense of war in the Qur’an. There are other words like qital and harb for war. The Prophet (PBUH) when asked what is jihad he is reported to have said that best form of jihad is speaking truth in the face of tyrannical ruler. Here so called jihadis them selves are tyrannical and it is needed to speak plain truth in the face. They need to be told that what they are doing is tyranny against innocent people.

It is such dastardly acts, which has brought bad name to Islam in popular imagination. We claim that Islam is a religion of peace but such acts convince people that Islam has nothing to do with peace but with violence and terrorism. It is in fact duty of Muslims to project them selves as model for peaceful behaviour. We cannot expect common people to discern and discriminate between handful of aggressors and large mass of Muslims living in peace with others and sticking to the Islamic teaching of peace.

It is believed that one of the intentions of throwing bomb on innocent people is to start communal violence in India. They threw bombs in Ayodhya, in a temple in Varanasi and earlier in a market place in Delhi last October. But people of India are mature enough not to fall prey to such dirty game. When bomb was thrown at a temple in Varanasi it was feared that it would trigger off communal riots. But not only Muslim leaders and intellectuals but also the chief mufti of Varanasi issued a fatwa decrying that attack on temple quoting the Qur’anic verse that to kill one innocent human being amounts to killing the whole humanity (5:32).

The chief mufti and chief priest of the temple in Varanasi came together and expressed solidarity thus completely frustrating the designs of those who wanted to ignite Hindu-Muslim riots. When a bomb as thrown at Ayodhya it was feared in the same way that it might trigger off violence between Hindus and Muslims and nothing happened. We must salute maturity of Indian people.

This time around also all important Muslim leaders have condemned this cowardly attack on innocent people. Jamiat-I-Ulama-i-Hind, Muslim League, Jamat-e-Islami-Hind, all of them spare no words in condemning this heinous crime against humanity. No saner person will ever condone such ghastly killings. The Hindus and Muslims in Mumbai rose to the occasion and helped all those who were injured and removed dead bodies to hospitals.

It seems India will have to live with such attacks for sometime to come. It is therefore, necessary to be ever alert. What happened on terrible Tuesday is also partly an intelligence failure. Though it is very difficult to predict when and where terrorists will choose to attack, it becomes all the more necessary to be very very alert. It is the duty of the Government of India to protect the lives of people against such attacks.

Also, it appears there was lack of alertness and disaster management. The police and other authorities took long time to reach spots of disaster. Time and again it has been stressed by the NGOs and other activists that India woefully lacks in disaster management. It has been proved once again that India needs to work hard to provide for emergency situations.

People themselves were, it appears, more prepared than the authorities. Such major disaster man-made or natural, are bound to take place time and again and so government should work in all seriousness to evolve sooner than later the disaster management plan.

Communal violence and minority-majority relations

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Often I face a question in various workshops and seminars on communalism as to why majority is often blamed for violence and not minorities. Those who ask this question often ask with genuine feelings and not necessarily as a result of communal bias. It will also be wrong to maintain that minorities are blameless and do nothing that is questionable.

First of all it is necessary to emphasise that one should not homogenise whole community, be it majority or minority. Neither all are communal in any community nor all are secular and peace loving. Also, there is no single political trend in any religious community. Here it would be interesting to give the example of partition in 1947. It would be wrong to maintain that all Muslims supported partition and all Hindus opposed it. Large number of Muslims including ulama (theologians) opposed partition. Similarly, it is equally wrong to maintain that all Hindus opposed partition. Many Hindus were of the view that partition was the only solution. Not only that Hindu Mahasabha believed in Hindu Rashtra and thus strengthened two-nation theory propounded by Jinnah but also leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai supported partition of the Punjab in 1924 itself.

In post partition period also in every community there are divergent political trends. It is wrong to assume, as communal elements often do, that all Muslims support the Congress. Large number of Muslims, for example, in West Bengal and Kerala support the left parties and in Tamil Nadu the DMK and AIDMK. Now Muslim vote also goes to different parties in different regions. The Hindu vote, of course, is divided among different political parties. Interestingly, all communal forces claim to be champions of entire community. The Sangh Parivar claims to be championing the cause of entire Hindu community. The Muslim League, similarly, claimed to be sole representative of Muslims in pre-partition days.

Thus when we talk in terms of majority-minority it creates an impression as if entire majority or minority community supports one particular point of view or one particular political trend. Large number of Hindus fight against the Sangh Parivar and large number of Muslims opposed Muslim League politics in pre-partition days. Thus while using the term majority or minority we should be conscious of this fact.

Thus when we say Hindu-Muslim problem it is not between all Hindus and all Muslims but between communal Hindus and communal Muslims. When we say Hindu communalism we mean communal politics of the Sangh Parivar who swear by Hindu Rashtra or incite Hindu feelings against Muslims. All Hindus do not support the Sangh Parivar.

It is important to note that after partition Muslims have been reduced to a small minority and cannot afford to be very aggressive. A section of Muslim leadership took aggressive posture during the eighties on questions like Shah Bano and Babri Masjid and launched aggressive movements. The result was strengthening the Sangh Parivar, which began to get more Hindu support. However, realisation about negative outfall of aggressive postures by a section of minority leaders came after demolition of Babri Masjid and consequent communal riots in Mumbai, Surat, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Bhopal and other places. Since then the Muslim leaders have been sobered down.

It is also important to note that majority tends to be arrogant and assertive not only in India but in all countries including those of the West. The white majority in Europe and North America (including Canada) tend to be racist and assertive vis-à-vis other Asian minorities. In Muslim countries the Muslim majority behaves no differently. In Bangla Desh Hindus are at receiving end and in Pakistan the Shia minority suffers at the hands of Sunni majority. In Sri Lanka the Sinhala majority tends to be quite aggressive vis-à-vis Tamil and Muslim minorities.

Thus Majority-minority conflict is almost universal. It is not specific to India. Majority feels arrogant on account of number and political power. In some countries minority may wield political power as the Alawis in Syria over Sunni majority or Sunnis in Iraq over Shia majority. But this is possible only under dictatorship and not in democracy. In Iraq today it is Sunni minority, which is using violence in protest against loss of power and prospects of Shias and Kurds ruling over them under democracy.

In all these countries usually those who are supporters of democracy and inclined towards left tend to be more sympathetic towards minorities. Thus we see in India left parties are very sympathetic of Muslim minority. It was left which consistently opposed the NDA rule and helped Congress form the government to keep NDA led by the BJP out of power. Also some caste -based parties like RJD, SP and BSP have taken sympathetic vie of Muslims. But this is more on account of compulsions of minority votes than on ideological grounds as in the case of the left.

But nevertheless such alliances, though not ideological, are nevertheless important to keep communal peace. Thus Bihar has seen communal peace in last 13 years largely because Lalu Prasad needs Muslim votes. However, in West Bengal the left has maintained communal peace in last 23 years not simply because of compulsions of vote but ideologically it is against communalism. And this is an important difference.

Besides arrogance of majority there are other factors like class, caste and race at work. In this connection the example of communal and racial violence, which has been going on for last 20 days is quite important. The police in suburbs of Paris was chasing some North African youth and two of them got electrocuted while running away from the police and the violence against police and subsequently against others broke out.

The North African youth attacking police and burning down cars every night belong to Algeria. Thus they are Muslims, black and poor. Thus they are thrice removed from white, French and middle class majority. These youth live in poor suburbs of Paris and other French cities, are less educated and unemployed. They are totally frustrated in life and have been victims of white racialism and economically downtrodden.

The police has so far failed to restore order. The fury of the youth is unparalleled. Here it can be argued that Black Muslim minority is being very aggressive. But it is not the whole truth. The white upper class majority has been highly arrogant and unjust to the Black Muslim Algerians. Violence results from victims of severe injustice as much as from arrogance of power. The violence borne out of frustration and continued injustices can at times be quite intense.

We can give example of Naxalite violence in India. The tribals and dalits who belong to minority in Indian society, tends to be quite intense as it is result of centuries of oppression and exploitation. Similarly the LTTE also tends to be very vicious in its attacks though Tamilians are in minority in Sri Lanka. Thus it will be seen that much depends on concrete situation and it is very difficult to generalise. In many cases minority can be very vicious in its attacks on majority people or on government constituted by the majority community.

If the minority is poor and illiterate it may tend to be less aggressive but if it is facing intense exploitation the situation might change. In case of India its secular democratic political structure becomes a cushion against more intense violence. The Muslim minority tends to benefit from democratic secularism and hence it does not resort to violence as minorities do in other authoritarian countries.

Indian Muslims were also traumatised by partition experience and soon realised that democratic secularism is there for their benefit. In this connection it is important to note that in India been most orthodox ulama support secular democracy as against the ulama in Muslim majority countries who denounce secularism as against Islam. The ulama feel empowered in Muslim majority countries through assertion of religious dogmas as majority of people follow Islam.

However in Muslim minority countries like India such assertion does not bring political empowerment but arouses suspicion of majority and hence such assertion for political empowerment is avoided and instead it is acceptance of secularism which brings more acceptability and so the ulama tend to support democratic secularism.

Thus to understand majority-minority dynamics one has to understand political dynamics of the country. One cannot understand it in political vacuum. It certainly cannot be understood only in terms of religion, as usually we tend to do. It is not a religious but a political problem. If it is a tiny minority like the Parsis it will not create any problem but if it is a sizeable minority like Muslims, it will give rise to majority-minority problem. The tiny minorities like that of Parsis cannot influence power dynamics while sizeable minority like that of Muslims can.

Thus when we discuss Hindu-Muslim problem we should be aware that all Hindus are not communal but most of them tend to be peace loving and democratic. It is only a tiny minority, which is aggressive and communal as it invokes religious identity in order to come to power. The question of blaming entire community does not arise at all. There would have been no democracy, let alone secularism, if all Hindus had toed the communal line.

Five years of Gujarat carnage: an overview

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Five years have past since the Gujarat carnage of February 28 2002 which lasted over six months. The carnage followed the burning of S-6 at Godhra on 27th February. It is great mystery as to who set fire to S-6 or was it an accidental fire? Before even news spread all over India of this ghastly incident at Godhra in which 59 persons were burnt, Ahmedabad city started burning on the morning of 28th February. In the post-Godhra carnage in central and north Gujarat more than 2000 persons, mostly of minority origin, were killed most brutally. Several women were raped and weapons inserted in their private parts.

The then NDA Government at the Centre and Modi in Gujarat maintained that S-6 was set afire as a result of conspiracy hatched by the ISI of Pakistan with the help of some Muslims in Godhra. The Modi Government arrested about 100 persons under POTA which was then in force. However, during last five years the Modi Government has not been able to produce an iota of proof against the accused in the ‘Godhra conspiracy case.’

The POTA review committee opined last year that there are no substantial grounds for keeping the accused under the POTA but even then the Modi Government refused to release these accused.

It is real mystery as to who set fire to the coach S-6 or was it an accidental fire. The Banerjee Commission set up by Shri Lalu Prasad, the Railway Minister in the UPA Government concluded that the fire was result of short circuit inside S-6 and there is no evidence for setting fire from outside. Mr. Mukul Sinha, the defense lawyer thinks that fire was result of bursting of cooking stove carried by karsevaks went on long tour to Ayodhya. The Shah-Nanvati Commission, which is also probing in the train burning at Godhra has still not published its report. One wonders what conclusion it would draw.

Before even the cause of fire was known Modi pronounced the theory of ‘equal and opposite reaction’ and justified the carnage in Gujarat on the very first day the carnage began. Modi also insisted on carrying the dead bodies of Godhra train tragedy in procession in Ahmedabad thus providing direct provocation for the carnage. No administration, let alone a chief minister, would permit dead bodies of those killed in any sensitive communal incident to be taken out in procession as it acts as direct provocation for more violence. But Modi wanted precisely that.

The Gujarat carnage of 2002 was very different from other riots in post-independence India for following reasons:

1) In no other riot in post-independence period chief minister directly provided justification for massacre as Modi himself did. There have been instances of chief minister not effectively quelling the riots but never of justifying them.

2) In no other riot ministers and police officers led the marauding mob. In case of Gujarat carnage many eye witnesses named two ministers including Mr. Zadaphiya, the then Minister of state for Home involved in directing the marauding mobs. He even entered the police control room and directed the police what to do. His cell numbers also have been recorded. No outsider is ever allowed in police control rooms.

3) In no other riots police officers have been transferred for effectively controlling communal violence. In Gujarat 2002 several honest and committed police officers were transferred on this ground and soon after their transfer riots broke out in that region.

4) In no other riots refugee camps were suddenly closed without providing either alternate accommodation or allowing the refugees to return to their homes and hearth. Modi Government closed the camps without any justification and without providing refugees any alternate accommodation or making arrangements to return to their homes and hearths. Modi while closing down the camps even derisively remarked that I cannot allow ‘baby-producing factories’ to go on, simply because few Muslim women who were pregnant at the time of riots gave birth to babies in refugee camps.

Not only that the refugee camps were closed down even today i.e. five years after the carnage more than 5000 families are rotting in horrifying conditions in various refugee camps. Not only this Modi recently returned more than Rs.19 crore to Central Government saying funds are no more needed as all have been ‘settled’. The victims of Gujarat carnage are unable to return to their original homes as they are still threatened by the VHP activists of the affected villages.

They say that victims would be allowed to return only if they agree to withdraw all cases against the perpetrators of carnage in the village and on condition that they will live in separate quarters like the apartheid and would not give azan on loud speakers. Naturally many victims have refused to agree to these humiliating conditions and are living in most despicable conditions.

What is most shocking is that the Gujarat society is still completely polarised and one sees no signs of repentance among those who indulged in most brutal violence against fellow human beings. They still feel the violence against Muslims was justified. The Sangh Parivar has been carrying on high-pitched hate campaign against minorities even today. Modi need this campaign to go on as it is to be used as political capital in coming assembly elections.

In fact the Gujarat carnage, as it is well known was carried out with the sole purpose of winning the 2002 assembly elections in Gujarat. When the Modi Government won the elections with two-third majority the BJP functionaries celebrated the victory by saying we have found a ‘model’ to win the elections and we will repeat it in other states. Even Mr.Vajpayee, the then Prime Minister of India when asked for his reaction as to the winning model, he replied ‘will Muslims burn train in other place?’ In other words even Vajpayee found the ‘model’ acceptable.

However, the BJP lost general elections of 2004 and Mr. Vajpayee accepted that NDA Government was defeated mainly because of Gujarat carnage. The people of India who are basically peace-loving and secular rejected the BJP-led NDA Government lest other states should experience such carnage. The BJP is in disarray ever since and has not been able to find yet its political bearings. The BJP and Shiv Sena are the two political parties which, thrive on anti-minority hate campaign. They want to base their victory in elections on hatred against minorities. The Sena Chief Bal Thackaray again made sharp attack on Muslims during the Mumbai Municipal Corporation elections.

Is there any way out? In Gujarat one does not find any way out as of now. What Gujarat needs in healing touch and only civil society can provide it. But as pointed out above, the civil society itself is deeply polarised on communal lines. In South Africa the blacks and coloured had suffered immensely under the White Government. When Nelson Mandela could establish government of people of African origin, he did not seek any revenge and instead set up a truth and justice commission. Bishop Desmond Tutu played very vital role in functioning of the commission. It provided the healing touch.

But one does not see any Desmond Tutu in Gujarat. The civil society is badly divided. In democracy a vibrant society can play very important role but when it is itself polarised on communal lines how can it intervene to set things right? Harsh Mandar, who himself is not from Gujarat, but is extremely sensitive soul, is trying his best to bring about some reconciliation is few villages of Gujarat. But it is only a lonely battle of an outsider.

Why the Gujarat society is so polarised today? The BJP has won over dalits, backwards and tribals in its political fold and thus Hindus, despite deep internal cleavages appear to be united. There has never been a strong dalit movement in Gujarat emphasising their own separate identity like in Maharashtra and other states. There has been no reform movement either. Thus in absence of such a movement dalits, backwards and tribals find it politically beneficial to be part of Hindutva parivar.

Only in 1985 the then chief minister of Gujarat Mr. Solanki had made a feeble attempt to unite weaker sections of Gujarat society by forming a KHAM alliance. KHAM stood for kshatriya, harijans, adivasis and Muslims. He gave them reservations as per Bakhshi Commission recommendations and won 1985 assembly elections with two-third majority. However, the BJP saw the red and launched an aggressive movement against KHAM alliance and succeeded in toppling Solanki Government. Solanki also unfortunately did not stand up firmly with the alliance and suspended reservations to save his government.

However, that knocked the ground off the KHAM alliance and except Muslims, other weaker sections sought refuge under the Sangh Parivar. That is the main reason why Sangh parivar has been able to successfully create the illusion of ‘Hindu unity’ and Hindu rashtra. The Congress after Solanki could not stand up and almost willingly conceded ground to the Sangh Parivar. Most of the Congressmen themselves subscribe to Hindutva ideology in Gujarat. It has rightly been described the B-party of BJP.

The BJP has been further helped by the identity crisis among the Gujarati NRIs living in U.K. and USA. They help the Hindutva movement in Gujarat generously through their financial contributions to compensate for their identity crisis. Most of the Gujaratis have struck it rich in USA and satisfy their conscience by supporting the Hindutva movement back home. Taking all this into account there is very little hope in Gujarat for the time being. Let us hope for better days in future.

[photo by Itamar Goldstein]

Future of communal relations in India

By Asghar Ali Engineer

What is the future of communal relations in India? What will be the likely scenario in coming 30 years? This is an important question. Is India doomed as a secular democracy? Or does India’s future lie in secular democracy? Will the Hindutva forces gain or loose? There are different answers to these questions, which is quite natural. In complex social and political problems there are no easy answers. To get some probable answers one has to get at the root of the problem.

India, it is important to note, has been a multi-religious, multi-cultural and multi-lingual society for centuries. Forces of tolerance have always been strong in its soil. Besides others Emperors Ashoka and Akbar have been great symbols of tolerance and openness to other religions. Throughout medieval ages, one hardly finds instances of inter-communal clashes though among religious priesthood there was bigotry and sectarianism. This bigotry and sectarianism as exposed by poets like Kabir.

However, the Sufi and Bhakti movements acted as bridge builders. They effectively countered the narrow mindedness of priestly class and spread love and humanism. The Sufi and Bhakti saints, were more spiritual than religious in ritualistic sense. Their whole emphasis was on love, peace and harmony. They had their roots among common people, poor and of lowly origin. They kept their distance from rulers and ruling classes.

It is important to note that it is clash of interests, which brings about unrest and communal tensions in society, not clash of religions. Religions do not clash; it is vested interests, which do. In medieval ages religious communities were not politically organised, they were distinctly different yet not hostile to each other as they did not cater to political needs.

It is with the event of colonialism on one hand, and, subsequent parliamentary democracy that led to politicisation of religion and religious communities. Thus inter-religious clashes are in fact, inter-political clashes. Different political parties carve out their vote-banks among different religious communities and target some community, in order to emerge as champion of ones own community. In fact, they are champions of their own political interests, rather than community’s interests.

In India such communal division occurred mainly due to colonial machinations. It ultimately led to division of our motherland. This political vivisection became a running sore for people of India, particularly for those of majority community as they saw Muslims as responsible for division of the country. Muslims as a community were not responsible for division but only a section of upper class Muslim elite in collaboration with British colonial power brought about this division. In fact common Muslims are really suffering today on account of this division.

The rightwing Hindu politicians exploited the issue of partition to the hilt with an eye to Hindu votes and often incited communal violence. This violence intensified during the decade of eighties in post-independence India. Most of the major riots in independent India took place during 1980 to 1992-93. There are number of reasons for this. By the time we saw dawn of eighties about 40 years had passed since India became independent. The democratic processes intensified and brought more democratic awareness among the minorities and weaker sections of India and they got better organised by then to demand their due share in power.

The upper caste Hindus felt that in coming years they will have to yield more and more share of power to minorities and low caste Hindus (dalits) and hence the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), mainly representing the political and economic interests of upper caste Hindu elite, raised alarm and began propaganda blast against minorities and dalits and led to heightened inter-communal and inter-caste tensions. The BJP used Ram Temple controversy as a powerful symbol to mobilise Hindu votes and ultimately rode to power in 1999 and remained in power until 2004.

The Sangh Parivar (which includes Rashtriya Seva Sangh, Vishwa Hindu parishad and BJP) tried to weaken secularism and Hinduise Indian plot during their rule. It was during the BJP rule (both at the Centre as well as in Gujarat state) that Gujarat carnage took place in 2002, which officially 1000 and unofficially 2000 Muslims were brutally killed. Thus inter-religious violence achieved its climax during the BJP rule, which bases its politics on hatred of minority communities.

It was during the BJP rule that attacks against miniscule minority of Christians also began. An Australian Christian priest James Staines, working for lepers among tribals in a distant village of Orissa in Eastern India was burnt to death along with his two young children. Many other Christian priests and nuns were also attacked or murdered. This was the darkest period of secular India.

But it is to be noted that people of India rejected the BJP rule because of its communal excesses and voted the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) government led by the Congress to power in the elections of 2004. Thus the people of India once again proved that they are secular and tolerant and desire communal harmony and better inter-religious relations. Though one cannot see inter-communal relations in straight line as much depends on political dynamics in the country.

However, on the whole, it can be said that common people of India are desirous of peaceful co-existence and do not appreciate communal turmoil in the country. The dark side of economic development is vast poverty-stricken underbelly of India. India is still at 137th place out of 139 countries surveyed as far as malnutrition and deaths caused by hunger is concerned. Such stark poverty cannot but have political implications.

The ruling classes use caste and communal issues to divert attention from such horrific problems. Many politicians are tempted to resort to communal-based, instead of issue-based politics. The Gujarat carnage of 2002 took place precisely when the BJP Government was signing various international trade treaties and liberalising economy benefiting handful of economic elite.

Thus in coming 30 years one cannot expect smooth inter-caste and inter-communal relations as the ruling classes would certainly tempted to employ emotional issues to catch votes of common people without solving their problems. This process of emotionalising and communalising politics is aided and abated by the media also, as media itself is controlled by political and economic elite.

The Sangh Parivar has consolidated its base during six years of its rule and possesses disciplined cadre and thus possesses great capacity to communalise politics and provoke communal violence. But there are countervailing forces too which go in favour of more secularised democracy.

The lower castes (dalits) though at times get used by upper caste Hindus and are swept off their feet by powerful emotional propaganda but on the whole tend to be anti-Sangh Parivar force. These dalits are main victims of upper caste elite politics and their leaders try to counter communal politics in order to keep their caste flock with them. The caste awareness is increasing with spread of education among dalits and with spread of democratic awareness. Though dalits and minorities are far behind in the field of education, yet more and more are getting educated and are becoming aware of their political rights. Greater the political awareness among dalits and OBCs (other backward classes), more challenging it would be for communal politicians to manipulate religious and communal sentiments.

Another factor is increasing globalisation, which in itself creates contradictory effects as far as communal situation is concerned. On one hand it intensifies urge for religious and cultural identities to face homogenising global processes and on the other, it opens up economic opportunities for educated middle classes and induces their out-migration thus reducing communal potentialities.

It is also interesting to note that today there is increased awareness among Muslims in India to make a concerted efforts to better their position through more education and better economic opportunities and avoid emotional issues which bring nothing but disaster for them. There were entangled in Ramjanambhoomi politics and suffered a great deal. Thus with few exceptions, Muslims are shedding their communal past, and preparing themselves for better future prospects.

Also, communal forces are loosing credibility among people of India. They have no achievement to show except communal rhetoric and bloodshed. Before coming to power they claimed to be ‘clean’ and non-corrupt. However, now many corruption scandals are coming out in which their leaders were involved during their rule. On this count also, they have lost much ground.

Thus in coming 30 years, it appears, communal forces will find it very difficult to regain their lost ground and communal politics will be weakened. However, much will depend on performance of secular forces also. Communal forces thrive more due to failure of secular forces than on account of their inherent strength. Communal forces gain strength only because secular forces fail to assert and perform. Communal forces, it appears, will loose ground and one will see greater urge among people for co-existence and harmonious leaving in coming thirty years.

Governance and Religion : an Islamic point of view

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Governance is an important part of modern states whether it is democratic or even an authoritarian form of state. Some people feel that even an authoritarian form of state, if it governs properly and delivers is better than the democratic state which is corrupt and inefficient and does not deliver. However, it does not mean that authoritarianism can be justified in any case. It is just to emphasise importance of governance.

Can religion, whether Islam or any other, play any role in matter of governance? If so what role? Some may argue religion is not only a matter of belief but also concerns itself more with the world to come than this world. Belief in God, doctrines and rituals, all relate themselves to the other world. Religion also has dogmas irrelevant to this world. However, the other viewpoint is that religion is a way of life and also a useful guidance for this worldly life. It intends to mould good moral character and relates to leading a successful life and to this extent it is inevitably connected with matters of good governance so that goodness if rewarded and evil is punished. One cannot lead successful moral life if there is no security of life and property and basic needs are not fulfilled. And therefore, good governance enhances quality of life and becomes a factor in enriching spiritual life.

If the governors are morally upright and truly religious people it will by far enhance quality of governance. Buddhism, for example, stresses compassion and eliminating suffering (dukkha). Thus an engaged Buddhist will govern in such a way as to reduce or even eliminate suffering of people she/he governs. A follower of Jainism, on the other hand, will be seriously concerned with eliminating violence from people’s life. A bad governance results in intensifying violence in society. A good Christian will strive through governance to promote love in the society and thus people will live in perfect harmony, which will smoothen mutual relations.

Thus it will be seen that value-orientation of religion can be greatly helpful in improving quality of governance. But life is much more than mere ideals. There is constant tension between ideal and personal interests. If human behaviour had been determined by ideals alone this world would have been a paradise by itself. The kingdom of God would have descended on earth.

Human behaviour is by far the most complex. Various factors like social, cultural, historical, economic and political play their respective role in determining a person’s role. No human being lives in vacuum. One faces pressures from all sides. Even when one intends to be honest and truthful, one finds it so difficult to be so. But most human beings easily give in to demands of flesh and cannot resist temptation of good things of life. The governors, who have powers to realise what they want, find it all the more tempting to yield to pressure of their desire.

Thus one finds so much corruption even in religious establishments, which have been primarily established to fight evil in life and control desire. To control desire is the greatest jihad in life and without this jihad no governor can deliver. It is true, it is greatest challenge in life to resist pressures of ones desires and practice ideals of ones religion or political ideology, one has, nevertheless set ideals so that one can continuously measure ones behaviour vis-à-vis these ideals. Laws are often broken yet we need these laws. Religious teachings are often disregarded and yet we need these teachings to continuously strive to improve our behaviour.

Thus these religious ideals can be helpful in improving our governance. We are not concerned here with various dogmas and doctrines in which one may differ from each other and even may not accept them. We are mainly concerned with values, and not dogmas. What is Islam’s viewpoint about governance? Does it concern itself with governance at all?

Islam tries to strike balance between this and other worldly life and exhorts its followers to lead moral life on earth and also to prepare for the other world through ‘ibadaat (various spiritual acts of worship). Qur’an, the main source of Islamic teachings, stresses cooperation on goodness (birr) and taqwa’ (avoidance of evil) and prohibits them to cooperate with each other in sin and aggression. (see 5:2)

Thus it s obvious from above verse of the Qur’an that good governance is also dependent on people’s cooperation in goodness and avoidance of evil and refrain from committing sin and aggression. Aggression and violence upset the balance of life. The Qur’an also makes it duty of every individual to enforce what is good (ma’ruf) and contain what is evil (munkar) (3:110). Thus people have to engage themselves continuously in promoting good and containing evil. This is duty of people.

Thus people are very much part of good governance. Good governance is not possible without full co-operation of the governed. Every believer (mu’min) has to enforce good and contain evil irrespective of her/his status in society. No one, according to the Qur’an enjoys higher status than the other except by good deeds. One closest to Allah is one who is most pious. (49:13).

Justice

However, this does not mean that governors have no responsibility. In fact they are charged with the grave responsibility in this respect. The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) provided the best model of a good governor. He himself lived an exemplary life. He never misused his powers to favour even his closest relative. When some one came with recommendation not to punish a thief, the Prophet (PBUH) became angry and said even if my daughter Fatima had committed theft, he would not have spared her.

Thus it would be seen that the rot starts if one is not just and favours a few over others. No criminal, even if she/he be a close relative, should be spared. The Qur’an, therefore lays down very rigorous standard of justice. Justice (‘adl) is the central value in Islam. No system can be stable without justice. One of Allah’s name is ‘Adil (just). Justice is most fundamental to good governance.

The Qur’an says, “O you who believe, be upright for Allah, bearers of witness with justice; and let the hatred of a people incite you not to act justly. Be just; that is nearer to observance of duty. And keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is aware of what you do.� (5:8). This Qur’anic injunction is universal in application. Both governor and the governed should be equally just. For a governor even hatred of other people should not incite him to commit injustice to them. Thus even enmity should not be allowed to commit an act of injustice. This is so central for good governance.

One of the great obstacles against good governance is ones prejudice against people not belonging to ones community or caste. While they shower favour on people of their own community or caste they deprive not belonging to their community of their just right. Such acts are legitimised in various ways, sometimes in the name of merit and efficiency or sometimes in the name of nation. Whatever the justification injustices one day lead to turmoil in the society.

The Prophet was a highly just ruler. He followed Allah who is described by Qur’an as “ “Best of the Judges�. The opposite of justice in Qur’an is zulm (wrong doing, oppression). In fact the root meaning of zulm is darkness. Injustices always lead to darkness of oppression and exploitation in society. The Qur’an says “Allah is Friend of believers and brings them out of darkness into light.� (2:257) Thus we have to create an order that is full of light and liberates humanity from darkness of zulm. Thus it is the duty of a ruler to create a just order where there is no place for zulm at all.

Equality

Another of important value in Islam is equality of all human beings. It is called musawat. All human beings are equal as human beings. The Qur’an says that all children of Adam have equal honour. (17:70). No one can deprive human beings of this dignity given by Allah, their creator. Thus a ruler has to ensure equal dignity and honour to all in his regime. There should not be any distinction between white and black, speaker of this or that language, belonging to this or that nationality.

Allah describes differences between various nationalities and tribes thus: O humankind, surely We have created you from a male and a female and made you tribes and families that you may know each other. Surely the noblest of you with Allah is the most dutiful of you.� (49:13) Thus for a good governors differences of tribes and families should not matter and only one who is most conscious of his duties should enjoy highest and noblest status. The bad governance begins by being partial to ones own tribe or family. This becomes root cause of injustices, partiality and favouritism and nepotism.

Similarly the Qur’an describes diversity of colours and languages as signs of Allah (30:22) and not cause of inferiority or superiority over others. Such feelings of superiority and inferiority often result in injustices and consequent turmoil in the society. Thus an Islamic governance will make no such discrimination at all. It was this un-Qur’anic discrimination of Umayyad rule that resulted in highly oppressive regimes in the post-Khilafat period. We will throw more light on it little later.

Freedom of conscience

Also, for good governance there is great need for complete freedom of conscience and fearless criticism of rulers. The Prophet (PBUH) says that the best form of jihad (afza al-jihad) is telling truth on the face of a tyrant ruler. When people are deprived of their right to criticise rulers fearlessly the rulers tend to be more and more oppressive and exploitative. This right to criticise is available more easily in a democratic than in an authoritative society. Thus a democratic regime is more Islamic than an authoritative regime, if one goes by the Prophet’s above hadith.

It is also obvious that right to fearless criticism can be available only in a democratic and not in an authoritative regime. Thus proper governance is possible only in a democratic government. After the Prophet (PBUH) the Khilafat period in which the four rightly guided Caliphs ruled reflected some of these Qur’anic values, though not all. The first Caliph Abu Bakr said, while assuming office, “O people! Behold me – charged with the cares of Government. I am not the best among you; I need all your advice and all your help. If I do well, support me; if I commit mistake, counsel me. To tell the truth to a person commissioned to rule is faithful allegiance; to conceal it, is treason. In my sight, the powerful and the weak are alike; and to both I wish to render justice. As I obey God and His Prophet obey me; if I neglect the laws of God and the Prophet, I have no more right to your obedience.� [1]

In this brief statement above Abu Bakr, the first Caliph has summarised the Islamic philosophy of governance. The main elements of this are; 1) People should advise the ruler and help him discharge his/her duties; 2) If the ruler governs well, support him/her, and if he goes wrong, counsel him/her; 3) to tell the truth to the ruler is fulfilling ones duty and to keep silent when he/she goes wrong is treason; 4) the powerful and weak should be equal in the sight of the ruler and he should deliver justice to both, his/her aim and 5) if the ruler follows the God and the Prophet, one should follow him/her and if he/she goes against them, he/she will have no more right to people’s obedience.

Abu Bakr says one thing very important: to keep silent when the ruler goes wrong amounts to treason, treason against the God and His Prophet and against the people who are governed. Thus without fearless criticism of unjust rulers, honest governance is not possible. However, subsequently, both rulers and the ruled violated this principle and result was tyrannical rule and widespread injustice in the society.

Shared responsibility

The Qur’an also commands the Prophet “And consult them (i.e. those around you) in (important) matters.� (3:159). Dr. Taha Husain, an Egyptian scholar concludes from this verse that Muhammad (PBUH) did not found a theocratic state as the Prophet has been commanded to consult people around him in important matters. He writes that nothing can be more misleading than the concept that the state founded by the Prophet was a theocratic state.

According to Dr.Taha Islam after all, is a religion which lays emphasis on the unity of God, prophethood (of Muhammad) and then on righteous living. It also drew attention towards this and the other-worldly life but it did not deprive human beings of their freedom and it (Islam) did not become an absolute master of man nor did it suspend his initiative to act; it, on the other hand, made him the master within certain limits. It showed what was desirable and what was repulsive and, of course, it laid emphasis on reason and gave freedom (with the help of reason) to think what was good to the extent possible. The God commanded the Prophet (PBUH) to consul the faithfuls in (their) affairs. If everything had to be decided in the heavens, there was no need to consult anyone.[2]

Thus the Qur’an, according to Taha Husain, balances between God’s limits and human reason and freedom according to their needs within these limits (hudud) fixed by Allah. Thus in matter of governance influence of these hudud is quite inevitable. Any governance, which ignores these limits is bound to lead to turmoil and chaos in the society.

Weaker sections

According to the Qur’anic hudud governance implies great responsibility, as pointed out by Abu Bakr also, towards the weaker sections of society. The Qur’an is greatly concerned with fate of weaker sections of society. In the pre-Islamic society in Mecca, the poor, the orphans and widows were being totally neglected. Thus in chapter 107 we find condemnation of those who neglect these sections of society. Those who neglect these sections and even if they pray, it is mere for showing off.

Also, the Qur’an maintains that the struggle between the powerful and the weak is eternal and that Allah is on the side of the weak (mustad’ifin)[3] Allah intends, according to the verse 28:5 to make the weak the leaders and inheritors of this earth. Thus any governance, which is based on favouring the powerful and arrogant sections of society is bound to attract Allah’s wrath and would violate limits laid down by Allah.

In fact today governance in general, and in Islamic world in particular, flagrantly violates this cardinal principle of Qur’an and hadith. Over the centuries through the medieval ages, the people have become docile and submit to tyrannical rule and do not raise their voice. This is one reason why one finds lack of democracy in the Islamic world. Generally it is alleged that Islam finds democracy rather ill suited to its teachings. Nothing can be far from truth.

If democracy means participation of people in governance Islam is the first religion to emphasise that. Again and again it is emphasised in Islamic teachings to speak truth in the face of tyrant rulers. Imam Ghazzali even maintained that it is haram (prohibited) to see face of a tyrant ruler. The Qur’an strongly favours weaker sections of society and makes justice as inevitable part of believer’s conduct.

Are these not the cardinal elements of democracy? Democracy means openness and transparency of governance, people’s participation in decision- making and above all, justice. Also, there is emphasis in democratic governance on human rights, freedom and human dignity. No meaningful democracy can function without honouring human rights and freedom of expression.

Qur’an not only accepts human dignity but emphasises it in the verse 17:70 referred to above and also guarantees freedom of conscience (2:256). It is true Muslim rulers did not practice these cardinal principles throughout history of Islamic rule and instead develop highly authoritarian rule which began from the Umayyad period itself.

It is for the Muslim ‘ulama and intellectuals to attempt an honest critique of this authoritarian rule throughout Islamic history and develop a model which is in accordance with the Qur’an on one hand, and on the modern concept of human rights and human dignity and freedom. It is regrettable that Muslim intellectuals have also failed in their duty to attempt a systematic critique of governance in Muslim countries and have meekly submitted to tyrannical authorities. We often talk of Prophet’s sunnah but have not taken seriously Prophet’s assertion to speak truth in the face of a tyrant ruler.

Today’s governance is not possible without the concept of gender justice and women’s empowerment. One must admit that Islamic world is lagging far behind in this respect though some progress of late has been made although grudgingly. The Islamic world still tends to be highly patriarchal and has serious reservation in giving women their due. They are suppressing, and it is most ironical, Qur’anic rights of women in the name of Qur’an.

The Qur’an, empowered women by giving them, in the history of humankind, equal dignity. What is more important is that is that Qur’an has made obligatory on women what it has made obligatory for men including zakat, a poll tax. How can then anyone seriously maintain that women are secondary to men. Some verses are selectively projected to prove a partisan point rather than evolving an over all Qur’anic approach.

In order to develop just governance justice will have to be given priority over many age-old traditions. Justice is highly emphasised in the Qur’an. Unfortunately in many shari’ah laws given social traditions have assumed much greater importance over justice, which is so fundamental to Qur’anic teachings. Justice to weaker sections is a must according to the Qur’an and women also belong to weaker sections in our societies.

Conclusion

From what is discussed above is evident that religious values can have benevolent effect on matters of governance. What our traditional ‘ulama do is to insist on traditions than these Qur’anic values. Traditions are time bound whereas values are transcendent. While traditions emphasise what is, values emphasise what should be. Thus values are more important than traditions. Unfortunately the Islamic world is still strongly tradition bound than values bound. And here modern Muslim intellectuals have to play a constructive role by critiquing these traditions.

Those traditions, which are in keeping with values could be retained but those which are opposed to these traditions must be rejected. Traditions are local and values are universal and hence local cannot over ride universal. Also, most of the Muslim regimes are authoritarian and justify this in the name of Islam and Qur’an. No authoritarian regime, which denies basic human rights and freedom to speak truth can have any place in modern world, particularly the one based on Qur’anic values. Earlier we change better it is. Islam can and must play an important role in evolving good governance in the Muslim world.

-------------------------------------------

[1] - See Sayed Akhtar Husain, The Glorious Caliphate, Academy of Islamic Research and Publications, Lucknow, 1974, P-9

[2] - Dr. Taha Husain, Al-Fitnat al-Kubra Vol. I “Uthman, Urdu tr. by Abdul Hamid Nomani, Ajmal Press, Bombay (nd) pp-28-29

[3]- Qur’an 28:5

Gujarat on fire in 2006

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Baroda has witnessed riots in May of this year (2006) on scale reminiscent of Gujarat carnage in 2002. The rioting started on the question of demolition of 200-year-old dargah of Chishti Rashduddin in the name of demolition of unauthorised structures. The dargah was demolished on 1st May and rioting began immediately thereafter. The Muslims had offered as a compromise that 2.5 feet space from dargah (mausoleum) be taken and the rest not be touched. The Municipal commissioner of Baroda, it seems had almost agreed but went back later on under pressure from BJP leaders.

The Baroda Municipal Corporation is under control of BJP. BJP leaders were in no mood to spare dargah. For them it was a ‘mini-Babri Masjid’ and wanted to demolish it at any cost. The Municipal Corporation had demolished some roadside small temples, which were unauthorised and it was argued that when we have demolished these temples why should we not demolish a dargah.

The comparison was totally unfair. The dargah cannot be construed as unauthorised as it existed for last 200 years and it was registered in city survey in 1912. In fact it is Baroda city, which has expanded around the dargah and hence dargah cannot be construed as ‘unauthorised’ in any sense of the word. Moreover, the temples demolished were small roadside structures, which spring up overnight in cities.

But it seems the BJP was determined to demolish this ‘mini-Babri Masjid’ for its own ideological reasons. However, all efforts by Muslims went in vain and riots broke out. So far 6 lives have been lost. The police, as expected in the Modiland played quite a partial role and two Muslims were killed in police firing and two Hindus were killed in stabbing. Muslims in affected areas said that they made desperate calls to the police for help when the VHP-Bajrang Dal mobs were surging on roads and threatening to turn Baroda into Gujarat of 2002.

Many Muslims said that the policemen told them on phone to go to Pakistan for seeking help. Also, a BJP leader said in ND T.V. channel discussion that why these Muslims don’t migrate from India as Qur’an also sanctions hijrat (migration). This is chocking to say the least. Such brazen statements would not be tolerated in any other country and would not go unpunished.

Recently in U.K. a white citizen passed some racist remarks against Muslims outside a mosque and the court awarded him six months in jail. According to The Muslim News of 28 April 2006 “A man who shouted racist insults at Muslim worshippers outside Carliste’s Brook Street mosque was jailed on April 5, for six months. The Crown Court heard that Bryan Cork, 49, shouted ‘Carliste’s white’, ‘proud to be British’ and ‘Go back to where you came from’ as worshippers arrived for a Ramadan prayer on November 30, 2005.� Cork pleaded guilty to a charge of racially aggravated harassment. Cork was drunk at the time.

Judge Paul Batty QC observed while sentencing Cork to six months in Jail, “Racism in this city simply will not be tolerated in any form. It will not be tolerated anywhere in this country if at all possible. The aspect of racism which is clearly demonstrated here outweighs any personal mitigation which you have.�

Can such punishment ever be accorded in this country only on shouting that go back to where you have come from? In our country BJP and other communal leaders keep on shouting every day ‘Muslims go to Pakistan or Qabrastan’ and no one bothers. Here a BJP leader says on T.V. channel that why Muslims don’t migrate as Qur’an requires them to migrate and this is considered quite normal utterance. Even much worse statements are made which are highly provocative and no action is taken at all. A pluralist society can remain peaceful only when law is enforced rigorously. Here in our country the police itself is guilty of making such statements as they told Muslims in Baroda also “to go to Pakistan for help.�

The marauding mobs of Bajrang Dal and VHP burnt alive a Muslim youth in Baroda on the night of 3rd May and were roaming freely threatening Muslims to turn Baroda into Gujarat of 2002. The Muslims described that night as the night of terror. The life of the youth could be saved but police did not turn up on time despite desperate calls made by Muslims. The Muslim leaders then called Delhi and appraised authorities of situation in Baroda.

Centre’s Role in Baroda

It must be said that Central Government took stern view of what was happening in Baroda especially after the CPI leader Shri Bardhan met Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and apprised him of what was happening in Baroda. A Cabinet meeting was convened to discuss this matter and Mr. Antulay, Minister of Minority Affairs suggested that it should not be treated as law and order problem which becomes state subject but a problem of national unity and Centre should intervene.

This was accepted by the Cabinet and Home Minister Shri Shivraj Patil was requested by the Prime Minister to monitor Baroda situation on hourly basis and apprise him of developments. Mr.Shivraj Patil contacted Chief Minister Narendra Modi and asked him to control the situation. The message went loud and clear and Narendra Modi, a shrewd politician got the message that it is not 2002 with the NDA Government at the Centre but 2006 with UPA Government at the Centre.

He rushed to Baroda and made a statement that law is equal for all and that communal violence will not be tolerated and stern punishment given to all those who break the law. The Centre insisted on deployment of army though Modi wanted simply a flag march by army. But Shivraj Patil said army must be given control and Modi had to agree. Rapid Action Force was also reinforced.

Dissension In BJP At Work?

It is being said that RSS and VHP led by Pravin Togadia have turned against Modi as he kept mum on Advani’s Jinnah statement in Karachi and did not condemn it. Also Keshubhai faction wants to dislodge Modi Government and most of the BJP and VHP leaders provoking violence in Baroda belonged to Keshubhai faction in order to embarrass Narendra Modi. This appears to be plausible.

The Centre’s role is praiseworthy and if Centre can intervene to maintain unity of the nation rather than treating it only as a law and order situation and then leaving it to the state to handle, riots can easily be controlled in future. This augurs well for the integrity of the nation. One must also realise that since left forces are supporting the UPA Government their pressure on Prime Minister also played a healthy role. CPM leader Prakash Karat also had warned the UPA Government to take immediate action to stop communal violence in Baroda.

This also makes it urgent to enact the communal violence bill at the earliest with amendments suggested by various organisations working for communal harmony in the country. The prime consideration should be national unity and not merely law and order situation. Communal violence is very different from other forms of violence and should be treated as such and leave the matter to the state. The Constitution also places responsibility for maintaining unity of the country on the Union Government.

Gujarat carnage in 2002 could not be controlled and more than 2000 people were killed mainly because the Union Government was led by NDA of which the BJP was a major force controlling Home Ministry and it connived with the Modi government in fomenting communal violence with open state support. Communal violence is going to increase in this country if the Central Government does not take firm view as it did in the case of Baroda riots.

But again danger is if communal forces come to power in the Centre also the problem again can be aggravated. Thus a fool-proof system has to be evolved to control communal violence. If the present UPA Government can do it, it will be a great service to the country and minorities will feel more secure. It is all the more possible as the communists are supporting this government.

The Congress does not have glorious record to be proud of. In last 40 years of its rule major communal riots took place in various states and in states ruled by the Congress itself like Maharashtra, Gujarat, U.P. and Bihar and it did nothing save lip service to control communal violence. If the Congress had been sincere country would not have witnessed so many major communal riots in which more than 38,000 people have been killed so far.

The year 2006 had not witnessed communal riots of major proportions in first three months and it was hoped that this year might be comparatively peaceful. But that was not to be. Aligarh and now Baroda has smudged the record already and still there are 7 months to go. The communal forcers may have been defeated at the hustings but no one should be under the illusion that they are lying low. Their activities are in full bloom and will continue to be so unless Government comes down heavily to stop them which no one hopes to happen.

Identity and Development in Democracy

Identity and Development in Democracy

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective December 16-31, 2005)

Madhya Pradesh elections last year and Bihar elections this year have posed new dilemma for politicians. Mr. Digvijay Singh former Chief Minister of M.P. and Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav of Bihar had proved their secular credentials to minorities, particularly Muslims and were being voted by them massively as they had ensured communal harmony in M.P. and Bihar respectively during their rule.

But Digvijay Singh lost in M.P. and Laloo Prasad in Bihar after a long spell. Both were quite certain to win but lost ignonimously. Digvijay Singh lost in M.P. to the B.J.P. on the issue of Sadak, Pani and Bijli (lack of roads, water and electricity) and Laloo lost to Nitish Kumar of NDA on developmental issues after a long spell of 15 years.

The important question then is: How far identity politics can ensure electoral victory to a party or for a charismatic leader like Laloo? Can secular credentials alone is enough to win elections in a multi-religious democracy? Obviously not, if M.P. and Bihar election results are any indication. But then what about Andhra Pradesh? There Chandra Babu Naidu was busy ensuring development but lost heavily both state and Lok Sabha elections of 2004.

But then Mr. Naidu had aligned himself with a communal party like the BJP. Thus it shows that if secular politics with lack of development cannot carry beyond a point so also development politics in alliance with communal politics can also not go beyond certain limits.

However, there is one more variable, which has to be kept in mind. Naidu’s developmental model was too elitist to have any impact on poorer masses. Thus Naidu’s rout in election resulted both from alienation of Muslims as he had aligned himself with communal forces and also because he was following a developmental model which left poor masses high and dry.

India is not only multi-religious but also a society based on rigid caste hierarchy. Thus in India it is not only religious identity which matters but also caste identity which has its own dynamics. In certain respects caste identity plays even more important role. Laloo Prasad Yadav was product of Mandal politics and he was successful in enticing O.B.Cs. (Other Backward Castes). In fact his success mantra depended on combining Muslim votes with OBC votes.

But OBC votes have their own hierarchy. Now as it appears from Bihar elections there are also MBC and EBC (i.e. Most Backward and Extremely Backward Caste) votes and all the fruits of power went to OBCs and MBCs and EBCs were totally left out and they took their revenge by deserting Laloo Prasad. They opted for Nitish Kumar, not because he will give them greater share but because they wanted to protest for being totally neglected.

As Secularism become mere slogan for politicians, OBC politics was also reduced to a formula for winning elections. Secularism ensured a riot-free politics for minorities but without ensuring to them any benefit of either political power or any share in economic development by providing them jobs or other facilities thus causing disenchantment among them beyond a point.

Mandal Commission aroused hopes among backward and other backward castes and politicians like Laloo Prasad promised them heavens to get their votes. But like Muslims the MBCs and EBCs too were left high and dry and most of the benefits were garnered by one or the other caste like Yadavs. The BJP during mid and late eighties of last century tried to construct strong Hindu identity by suing Ram temple issue. In Gujarat it went a step further in 2002 and tried to polarize Hindu voted by massacring Muslims and its leaders like Arun Jaitley even called it a new model to be followed in other states. However, this also did not happen and the BJP lost election very badly in the very next election in Himachal Pradesh.

The BJP also could use its Hindu card only for a very limited period and only in some states. Thus even majority community finds itself in a Strait Jacket as far as Hindu identity is concerned. The Hindu middle class, mainly from upper castes believed strongly during mid eighties of the last century in the theory of “Hinduism under siege� but now this also soon, lost its appeal and the BJP has altogether stopped talking about it.

BJP which claimed to be a party with difference throughout eighties and boasted about discipline is now rent with dissensions worst in nature even compared to the Congress or Janta Dal or any other party for that matter. The BJP which is based on the Hindutva ideology played identity politics to the hilt and consequently paid the price.

It would be seen that it is easy in the beginning to play identity politics but very difficult to sustain it for very long without combining it with issues like development with justice. The Congress sustained itself in power for close to three decades on the votes of upper caste Brahmins, Muslims and Dalits and Tribals. But in effect its development policies were highly biased in favour of upper caste Hindus and hence Muslims and Dalits got disillusioned and began to desert Congress. When Muslims and Dalits deserted Congress the Brahmins also did not want to remain in a sinking ship and found their natural ally in the BJP.

The Congress was thus wiped out and BJP with upper caste and OBC votes began to rise. The BJP was, however, controlled by upper castes and OBC soon realised that except for few symbolic acts it would not get much benefits from it. Dalits in UP began to support their own party BSP and its leader Mayawati an aggressive fighter grabbed Chief Ministership in UP through tactical alliance with the BJP. But this alliance being quite opportunistic soon fell through.

The S.P. which is in power through Yadav and Muslim votes as in Bihar is also in the doldrums and is facing severe crisis. In this My (Muslim and Yadav) combination, Muslims as usual are the loosers and only the Yadavs the gainers. And with Mau riots of October the Muslim sense of security has also been shaken. It is, therefore, difficult to say how long Mulayam Singh will last in power. The cracks are there for anyone to see. The law and order situation is also fast deteriorating in UP. It is facing Bihar like situation. The only difference is that the media is not as hostile to Mulayam Singh as it was to Laloo Prasad. But whatever media’s role in UP, the ground situation in UP is fast slipping from Mulayam Singh’s hands. He may not last very long.

Then what about identity politics? Is it justified or not? Should it be resorted or not? In democracy identity politics cannot be avoided altogether. In a backward country like India (though India is fast developing but this development is resulting even more in economic polarization) with highly skewed development, identity politics can hardly be avoided. Several religious communities and castes in the Hindu society have strong sense of grievance and which politician would resist temptation to exploit these grievances?

But more you exploit these grievances more you land in intractable problems. Who knows this better than Laloo Prasad, Mulayam Singh and Mayavati besides the BJP leaders? This is because these leaders are far from being honest and transparent and use these grievances for personal aggrandizement and hence land themselves in intractable problems.

It should be clearly understood that in a highly diverse and complex society like that of India identity politics can play very creative role, if it is done to seek justice for backward sections of society. Those who talk of only national identity and deny the role of other identities like that of religious, caste, regional and tribal identities are less than honest and do so to retain their unfair privileges which they have been enjoying and they make national identity co-terminous with majority religious identity. Thus in case of India the Indian national identity is sought to be made coterminous with Hindu identity and this Hindu identity then is used for suppression of other lesser privileged identities. Thus the concept of religious nationalism can be very dangerous for social justice and even and just development of society. It is only through assertion of these unprivileged identities that weaker sections of society like religious minorities, dalits, tribals and lesser developed regions can demand socio-economic justice. But again the dilemma is that unscrupulous leaders of these communities use these identities as tools for their own advancement. Another dilemma is that more backward sections tend to be more emotional and hence it becomes much easier for their leaders to exploit their emotions for political purposes. Being backward they are less educated and ready to be mobilized on emotional issues. They have no stakes in the given situation and longstanding frustrations and sense of deprivation makes them psychologically most vulnerable.

It is for this reason that Muslim politics in India has been centred around emotional issues like Shari’ah law, Aligarh Muslim University, Babri Masjid and Urdu. All these have become powerful emotional symbol of minority identity and politicians like Shahi Imam and others have been using these symbols for their own ends without bothering about their concert economic and educational problems. And these emotional issues also become not only potential source for communal violence but also easy means for strengthening Hindu communal forces. Thus in mid-eighties BJP thrived on emotional outbursts among Muslim on issues like the Shah Bano Judgment and Babri Masjid. These highly emotional issues also caused great deal of communal violence. The UP had in fact become a communal powderkeg and most of the major communal riots took place in mid-eighties and thereafter in UP and Bihar.

Similarly Mayavati exploited Dalit emotions for her own politics and reduced Ambedkar as a powerful symbol in her politics of personal ambitions. She hardly did anything for dalits to solve their land question but went on erecting Ambedkar statues and parks during her reign in UP and named few districts after Dalits icons. At the most she posted few Dalit officers subservient to her to some key posts. But the socio-economic condition of Dalit masses hardly improved. They were made to feel proud that Behenji, (this is how Mayawati was usually addressed), their leader, is in power, though they themselves were never empowered.

For extreme backward caste less said the better. Though their votes were exploited by like of Laloos and Paswans none of them even could emerge as leaders. It is these who joined Naxalites to fight the menace of landlords in their villages and it is these who get usually killed in either reactive violence by the landlords or in so called encounters by the police.

There is hardly easy solution to such a problem of complex identity politics. Greater the backwardness and illiteracy the greater will be the potential for exploitation by the unscrupulous politicians. Politicians play the game according to their own rules. Identity politics can become a powerful instrument for betterment of weaker sections and it can also become powerful tool for empowerment of opportunist politics. However, the poor and exploited masses have no choice in the matter. They trusted their leaders and they betrayed them. They went behind Naxalites in some instances and got nothing more than violent death. Though Naxal leaders are comparatively more honest but they do not realize that violence begets more and more violence and road to violence ends only in an abyss. And it is hard to find honest politicians among those who are seeking power through these identities.

The situations seems hopeless and unnerving. Only hope one can have in the democratic process and struggle of the masses. Masses can and do punish unscrupulous and ambitious politicians during elections. But one can argue this process is to slow and cumbersome. The masses in Bihar did punish likes of Laloo but those who have replaced him are worse rather than better. They are no less corrupt and also aligned with communal forces. Thus only solution seems to be struggle by the masses under the leadership of those who do not have ambition for power to build powerful pressure on the system.

However, this is not an argument for party less democracy. Obviously Jay Prakash Narain’s movement for partyless democracy failed miserably. This is an argument for building pressure on the system through mass struggle. Such a struggle though does not ignore identity but also goes beyond it by building alliances across identities. It is identity politics but goes beyond it too through building creative alliances. It can pave the way for revolutionary change for social justice with a leftward thrust.

The regional and ethnic identities in Kashmir and North East have chosen violent ways. But the leaders of violent struggle too like other politicians acquire powerful vested interests and are more interested in perpetuating violence than in solving the problem. Democratic elections in Kashmir held last time in freer and fairer atmosphere have ensured greater relief than years of violent struggle which brought nothing but trail of death and destruction without yielding any result. Thus the democratic way of struggle, though slow, is certainly more productive. The people of Kashmir have realized this at a cost of more than sixty thousand lives. Democracy and democratic struggle can ensure better and more peaceful ways of realizing justice and fair play.

Identity in a multi-religious society

IDENTITY IN A MULTI-RELIGIOUS SOCIETY

Asghar Ali Engineer

(Secular Perspective April 16-30. 2006)

In a democratic society identities play important role and a democratic society tends to be a competitive society and competitive identity often clash with each other. Also identity could be primordial or acquired. Primordial identity is much more deep-rooted than an acquired identity. Religious, caste, linguistic or cultural identity is examples of primordial identity and professional identities like an engineer, mathematician or banker are examples of acquired identities. Sometimes national identity can also change in this era of rapid transport and globalisation though in the past also people migrated from one country to another.

We also have to bear in mind that no person has single identity. All of us have multiple identities primordial as well as acquired ones. One has, for example, a religious, sub-religious, linguistic, cultural identities along with one or the other acquired identity. All these identities are not of course operational simultaneously. One identity can become more important over the other, depending on the context.

Our national identity can become more important when another country attacks us, or our religious identity can become more important, if there are clashes between two religions, or regional identity can become more important if there are regional or linguistic clashes. Thus no one identity can be permanently important identity vis-à-vis other identities. It is also unfair to demand, as some ultra-chauvinist forces do, that all should have only one identity like an Indian identity or a Pakistani identity.

In the democratic processes some identities get more politicised than the other identities. It is quite natural that politicians often appeal to primordial identities like religious, caste or linguistic identities. And this results, more often than not, in religious or linguistic clashes. When the Shiv Sena asserts Maharashtrian identity, it comes into clash with Hindi identity and its Hindutva plank suffers. Sometimes it faces dilemma while using both Maharashtrian as well as Hindutva identity.

In all modern nation states, there are various identity-related dilemmas as no nation-state today is mono-religious or mono-lingual. All nations today are multi-religious or multi-lingual. Often majority religious community equates nationalism with the ethos of its own religion and looks upon minority religious groups with suspicion and when some political party courts a minority group for votes, accuses it of ‘minorityism’. This often results in religious clashes.

Similarly powerful caste groups or linguistic groups mobilise their primordial identities for retaining their privileges but when weaker groups or minority groups do so they are accused of anti-national activities. Today no political party in India (except communist parties) fights elections without using primordial identities. BJP, which claims to be nationalist, is worst offender in this respect. It is now openly using caste identities to fight elections. It spares no stone unturned in this respect.

Identity by itself is not something to be shunned as some rationalists often maintain. Identity is quite natural whether it is primordial or acquired one. It is a psychological force and gives sense of belonging. No human being can live in religious, social or cultural vacuum. But identity can become very problematic when it acts as barrier and excludes other identities. Primordial identity exists by itself, but when politicised, it defines itself vis-à-vis other identities.

Thus a Hindu or a Muslim identity can exist by itself but in a competitive political atmosphere one defines itself against the other and becomes totally exclusive, not only exclusive but confrontationist and may result in violence. Acquired identities, on the other hand, though does become exclusivist in certain situations but not confrontationist or violent.

However, in modern times migration has assumed more serious proportions as compared to pre-modern period when means of transport were not so rapid. Migration causes host of problems both to migrant minorities and host countries. It gives rise to friction within host countries. Many Muslims have migrated in recent times to European countries and are facing hostilities with population in the host countries.

It not only creates intense job competition resulting in identity clashes but also in cultural problems. The migration from Asia and Africa has given rise to strong cultural prejudices. France, for example, banned hijab for Muslim women and turbans for Sikhs. The Danish cartoon controversy was also partly result of cultural prejudices. In U.K. also Indian and Pakistani communities often face great hostility from English people. The Paki bashi term is result of such hostility. It also results in race riots.

The recent riots in France between Muslims of African origin and French police was also manifestation of hostility between French and African identities tending to be most exclusive. Muslims are facing much greater problems due mainly to 9/11 and subsequent bombings in London on 7/7. Generally Muslims of whatever national or ethnic origin are looked with suspicion and arouse hostility.

Now an effort is being made to evolve a new identity for Migrant Muslims in Europe i.e. Euro-Muslims. Euro-Muslims are evolving their distinct identity vis-à-vis the original identity of their fellow Muslims back home. Recently in Vienna a conference of European Imam’s on “Islam’s Future in Europe� was held and a declaration was issued in which they talked of European-Muslim identity. It also talked of evolving an ‘integration theology’. Euro-Muslim identity accepts certain European values like freedom of expression, democracy etc. However, it also said “Integration is not a one way street, but a mutual process.�

‘Integration theology is an interesting concept for conservative Muslims in Europe though it is a familiar term for Indian Muslims who have experience of living in non-Muslim India for a long time, for almost a thousand year. In North America a term like minority theology or minority jurisprudence is being evolved. Thus the migrant Muslims are definitely trying to evolve a new identity and new jurisprudence. This Euro-Muslim or Muslim-American identity is creative combination of primordial and acquired identity. This process of adjustment is necessary for buying peace in a new location.

Also in a democratic society two different trends work simultaneously. One trend represents rigidity and exclusivity and this trend often gets fortified in confrontationist situation or when politicians mobilise respective identities for their opposing goals. The second trend is represented by inclusiveness and openness toward other identities. However, politicians hardly benefit from the second trend and hence always bring about clashes between identities.

Thus it will be seen that identity by itself is not problematic. It is a psychological need as a sense of belonging to some group is necessary for every individual. But it is not correct to assume that identity will always be exclusive and confrontationist. Modern society can hardly ever be homogenous and hence different identities will have to find ways of coexistence and cooperation.

Blending of identities also can play creative role as our composite culture in India shows. Composite culture in India has played very creative role throughout medieval history of India. It is this blending of identities which created tolerant and creative cultural force. In Western countries too, this process is on and western social scientists have evolved new terminology like pluralism which west had never known earlier.

Still west is far from evolving a new composite culture. Unlike India western culture is predominant and minority cultures have not been integrated. It is still one way street as European imams and religious leaders pointed out. The Muslim or Hindu minorities in west are still too insignificant to make a cultural impact. In U.K. where Hindu and Muslim minorities are more in numbers compared to other western countries one sees some impact on eating habits of White British people though not so much so far in other fields. Perhaps it is matter of time.

In fact identity by itself is not a problem but it is rigidity which poses greater problems. For example, the Sufis were much more tolerant and evolved new blend of Muslim and local identity. They evolved even religious rituals which were creative blend of Islamic and local or regional ones. Thus two entirely different (but not hostile) identities merged into one another and a new one came into existence.

In regions like Sindh, Kashmir and Punjab, creative syncretism was even at much higher degree and Kashmiri and Sindhi cultures were entirely different from their pre-Islamic cultures. It was difficult to talk of Hindu Kashmiri or Hindu or Muslim Sindhi cultures. They blended so completely that they were referred to simply as Sindhi, Punjabi or Kashmiri cultures. When one talks of Kashmiriyat, as the Kashmiri people do, they do not define it as exclusively Muslim.

All this happened in medieval ages so smoothly that now one does not even remember pre-Islamic cultures of those regions. In this era of globalisation we have to be more accommodative and more tolerant. We need Kabir, Chishti and Nanak, Lal Ded and Nuruddin even more today.

Indian Muslims : problems and paradoxes

By Asghar Ali Engineer

In secular India Muslims, the largest religious minority, face various problems and paradoxes. Constitutionally India is secular and provides equal opportunities to all irrespective of caste and creed. But certain castes and communities are neither equal in practice nor are provided with equal opportunities in practice. This is paradox for secular India and to an extent paradox of Muslim community as well.

The Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes have suffered immensely throughout history of India. They always remained on the margins and never made it to the centre of the country’s affairs. They have been rightly provided with reservations in educational institutions as well as in government jobs to compensate for historical wrongs done to them. The reservations are being extended to OBCs (Other Backward Classes among Hindus) also.

However, history of Indian Muslims is little different. A section of Muslims was party of ruling class for more than 800 years. But a large section of the community comes from dalits and backward caste Hindus converted to Islam throughout medieval ages. Certainly 90% of Indian Muslims today come from these weaker and backward sections of society. The creamy layer of the community migrated to Pakistan from North India at the time of the partition in 1947.

Those who remained in India are mostly at the margin of the society like S.C. and S.T.s. Here lies the paradox – a community a section of which was at the helm of affairs, has almost been marginalized. The data – political, social as well as economic – clearly point out that Muslims have slipped below the level of Dalits. In other words, they are more backward today than even dalits.

No doubt a section of the Muslims is availing of opportunities provided by economic development in India. However, this section is very small and their social base quite narrow. This section, it is interesting to note, is coming from low caste Muslims who are mainly traditional artisans or professionals like weavers, gardeners, carders, bangle makers, butchers and so on.

Though there have been three presidents of India from amongst Muslims, three chief justices of Supreme Court and two chief ministers (in Rajasthan and Maharashtra) – and this is cited proudly as achievement of secular India – but a vast majority of Muslims live either on or below poverty line. This is another paradox Indian Muslims face.

Some political parties woo them for votes whereas communal parties like the BJP and Shiv Sena indulge in Muslim bashing citing this wooing by secular parties like the Congress, Samajvadi Party or Janta Dal, as ‘appeasement of minorities’. This is third paradox being faced by Muslims. The fact is that they have been completely sandwiched between this ‘wooing’ and so-called ‘appeasement’. The former creates false illusion whereas the later threatens their very existence.

The Congress never transcended the Laxman Rekha of wooing them for votes. Several promises were made but always betrayed. Mrs. Indira Gandhi appointed Gopal Singh High Power Committee to recommend measures to improve the economic condition of minorities in 1980, which did good work and submitted its report in early eighties. Before she could examine the report she was assassinated in November 1984 and the Report was put in cold storage. It was not even tabled in Parliament. When I drew attention of Shri. V.P. Singh when he was Prime Minister of India, he was not even aware of the existence of any such report. Nevertheless he promised to table it but before he could do so, his Government fell in 1989.

Mrs. Gandhi also had announced 15-point programme for economic uplift of Muslims but our monitoring clearly showed that the bureaucracy turned a blind eye towards it and till today it was not implemented. The government has hardly political will to implement such programmes. Now Manmohan Singh Government has appointed a high power committee to look into grievances of Muslims under the chairmanship of Justice Sacchar. No doubt Justice Sacchar, like Gopal Singh, is a well-wisher of Muslims and its members like Syed Hamid, Prof. T.K. Oommen, Abu Saleh Sharif and others. All are not only eminent in their own field but also great sympathisers of Muslims and their plight.

The data collected on the plight of Muslims by Sacchar Committee from different states like U.P., Rajasthan, Bihar, Gujarat, Maharashtra etc. is really shocking to say the least. There is no doubt that the report being prepared by this committee will be highly useful and beneficial. But again the real problem will be whether it will ever be implemented. Besides this, I want to place before the Committee a general outline of suggestions to be considered for their consideration.

Firstly, it is important to note that Muslims should not be treated as an homogenous communities. There are both horizontal and vertical cleavages and regional differences. Since the implementation of Mandal Commission Report, a caste consciousness has also emerged among North Indian Muslims, particularly in Bihar and U.P. These low caste Muslims – referred to in the past as kamin zaten (lowly Muslims) feel that they have always been left out and upper caste Muslims have taken the benefits of whatever has been given them by political parties.

So whatever recommendations are made by the Committee, this vertical cleavage among Muslims should be borne in mind. The all-inclusive approach should apply to entire Muslim community as much as to entire country. I feel there should be three-tier approach to Muslim problem – political, educational and economic. The problem needs to be treated on all these levels.

First political level. It is irony of the situation that Muslim elite fought or adequate political representation during freedom struggle, Jinnah even demanding 33% representation for Muslims in Parliament. But in post partition period there representation Parliament has never gone beyond seven percent and has generally remained at 5% in post partition period. Thus short of reservation the Government has to seriously think about representation of Muslims in proportion to their population or at least ensure 10% presence of Muslim members in Parliament. The secular parties should ensure 10% tickets to Muslims including Muslims of low caste biradaris to make their presence all- inclusive. The Congress party could take a lead by giving tickets to Muslims. In state assemblies the position is still worse. Muslim women should also find place in Party tickets. This may not be in terms of reference of the Committee but this could be informally suggested. They should also be given important positions in political parties. Political visibility of Muslims is important for the community.

On economic level more comprehensive approach is needed. A bulk of Muslims are urban or semi urban artisans. They need loans from banks for running their small businesses or looms or machines needed for their professions. The data shows that bank loans are not available to Muslims as they are generally not considered credit-worthy. The Government should see to it that loans are available to them and nationalised banks should be asked to rigorously enforce this provision. This will greatly benefit the artisans. There should also be polytechnics established for training of these artisans and also for training them in export-import rules so that they can effectively export their products. This was recommended by Gopal Singh Committee also. Such polytechnics could be established in cities like Meerut, Moradabad, Aligarh, Bhivandi, Malegaon etc. where Muslim artisans and workers are concentrated.

Such bank loans could be extended to Muslim businessmen who run small business establishments of their own or who want to establish small -scale industries. A finance corporation for minorities could also be established or its capital could be increased as in the case of Maulana Azad financial corporation. Central and state governments could contribute. Such measures will help backward sections of Muslims as new entrepreneurs are emerging from these sections of Muslims.

Presence of Muslims is also very poor in administrative, police, military services and on lower levels of administration like clerks, grade four employees etc. Even at lower levels of services their presence does not exceed 5 to 6 per cent. At these levels no special qualification is needed. There are enough matriculates and even graduates are available to take up these jobs.

At higher levels like IAS, IPS, IFS etc. Muslim presence is four per cent or even less. Again short of reservations the Government should take all possible measures, including special efforts to train them, to bring their representation to the adequate levels. Their representation should go up to 10 per cent in coming 10-15 years. Today Muslims nourish the feeling of being left out and this feeling should go with more affirmative measures. The experience of America also shows that African-American representation went down by two-third when in state of California the government withdrew these special measures.

The all-inclusive approach as spelt out by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is highly desirable to give adequate representation to weaker sections of society. This is all the more necessary in the highly competitive modern society. Otherwise, in the name of merit weaker sections of society will be condemned to do lowly jobs only.

One more measure necessary is to let Muslims fully avail reservations as OBCs under Mandal Commission as these reservations are not on the basis of religion but on the basis of backward classes. There are corresponding categories among Muslims under Mandal Commission, like dhobi (washerman), dyers (rangrez), weavers (julaha), lalbegis, faquirs, carders etc. This will also greatly benefit the community as a whole.

Such measures will be necessary at the third level too i.e. for educational purposes. Here too number of measures are necessary. Firstly, minorities should be given more facilities to open their own institutions especially engineering, medical, colleges of education, management institutions etc. Today they find it very difficult to get recognition for their institutions.

Secondly, Government should encourage madrasas to go for modernisation and establish madrasa boards to have equivalent qualifications to matriculation, graduation etc. by introducing secular subjects like mathematics, physical and social sciences. Thus many existing infrastructures can be easily utilised by giving some financial aid to existing institutions.

Also, state and central governments should establish educational institutions in Muslim localities to encourage more children to attend schools. Today it is noticed that there are no educational facilities in such localities and they have to go long distances which discourages them from going to schools. As far as possible facilities should be given for education in the mother tongue.

Good primary education lays the strong foundation for higher education and it is seen that one who gets good primary education can acquire merit needed to compete in the market. Let us remember that scope of government job is reducing and private sector is becoming more and more important for jobs. Thus reservation is loosing its charm due to enhanced role of private sector. Though reservation for Muslims is desirable as they are on par with Dalits and OBCs but this is no remedy as communal forces would raise hell for Muslims, if ever Government was to agree to it. Muslims would get very little out of it and loose much more in terms of security and well-being.

These are some of the suggestions, which could go a long way to improve political, economic and educational status of Muslims as a whole. In democracy all inclusive approach is a must and efforts to bring in weaker sections of society into political, economic and social mainstream is highly necessary otherwise weaker sections would be forever deprived of opportunities in the name of merit. Merit has to be seen from social perspective as much as from intellectual and cultural one.

Indian Muslims: Fifty Years in Independent India

INDIAN MUSLIMS, FIFTY YEARS IN INDEPENDENT INDIA - AN EVALUATION
February 16-28, 2002
by Asghar Ali Engineer

It is now more than fifty years since India became independent in 1947. India was unfortunately divided on the question of - and mainly on the question of rights of Muslims in independent India and their share in power. Jinnah and his colleagues in the Muslim League thought that "Muslim Homeland" was the best solution for Muslims to enjoy their proper rights. For that Jinnah even propounded theory of two nations Muslims being a separate nation and Hindus a separate one. Of course Lala Lajpat Rai had expressed similar views in his articles in The Punjab Tribune in 1924. In fact all those who thought of only one's community, rather than the country as a whole, easily came to the conclusion that each community is a nation and must have its own homeland.

In fact to homogenise the interests of a community itself is a communal way of thinking. Neither all Hindus nor all Muslims have same interests. Each community is divided on caste, regional, linguistic and cultural and class lines. Even Sir Syed when he talked of education he meant education for what in those days were referred to as ashraf (upper caste, upper class) Muslims and not ajlaf (lower caste artisans) Muslims as his speech in Moradabad while inaugurating school for children of weavers shows.

Similarly there was nothing in common between dalits and sawarnas (upper caste Hindus) as far as their political and economic interests were concerned. Baba Saheb Ambedkar had to fight hard for bargaining for dalit rights. Jinnah, on the other hand, was fighting for the interests of upper caste, upper class Muslims. He hardly, if ever, cared for low caste poor artisans and indebted Muslim peasantry. When the noted poet Iqbal who was then president of Punajb Muslim League, wrote to Jinnah for doing something for the poor indebted Muslim peasantry of the Punjab Jinnah replied by quietly dropping Iqbal from the presidentship of the Punjab Muslim League.

Thus no religious community should be treated as homogenous whatever the bonds of religion. Religious bonds are important but cannot be the only player in the vast complex of socio-economic life. But the communal leaders always use strong religious rhetoric to confuse the religious and spiritual matters with material interests. Pakistan was created for the upper caste and ruling class Muslims by using religious rhetoric and though it was called 'Muslim Homeland' overwhelming majority of Muslims in Pakistan still lives in poverty and literacy rates are quite low, even lower than average Indian Muslims.

Also, Pakistan was created to solve the "communal problem" and to put an end to communal violence in India. Even the Congress leadership thought that creation of Pakistan will solve the communal problem. But this is the problem, which has not been solved since partition in 1947. Except brief period of lull in fifties our country has witnessed riot after riot in the post-independence period, some of which shook not only the country but also the international community. The communal violence in Bombay after demolition of Babri Masjid is an example of such riot.

Thus it is in this respect (i.e. in respect of communal violence) all Muslims, rich or poor, Urdu speaking or Tamil or Malayalam speaking, have felt insecure in the independent India. Still there seems to be no solution to this problem. Earlier Hindus were thought to be much more tolerant than Muslims but now we see that it is the BJP-Vishwa Hindu Parishad-Bajrang Dal type of Hindus who are displaying real intolerance and fanaticism. Today, the main pre-occupation of Saffron family seems to be Ram mandir in Ayodhya as if a great country like India has no other problem. One would find hardly more intolerance than in the Saffron family today. It is these people who brought disgrace to the otherwise secular and tolerant politics of India.

The security-related issues have become highly worrisome for the minorities, particularly the Muslims and Christians. The BJP's claim that no communal riot takes place under its rule is also bereft of any truth. Number of riots, in fact, have taken place under the BJP rule. The latest example was that of Kanpur riot in March 2001 and PAC's role in it was flagrantly communal. Maximum number of riots of course took place during the eighties of the twentieth century during the Congress rule but that gives no relief to the Janasangh or its later avtar BJP. Most of these riots were planned and executed by the people of the Sangh Parivar. The congress can be of course blamed for its complicity or laxity. The BJP was mainly responsible for major communal riots during the eighties.

Though it was cleverly blaming the Congress for 'appeasing the Muslims' and creating the Muslim vote bank but in fact what it was doing was to appease the upper caste Hindus and creating its upper caste Hindu vote bank. Its Mandir agitation was nothing but sustained efforts to create a 'Hindu' vote-bank and it succeeded eminently in that effort, at least for the time being. It was during the eighties when the BJP which had taken vow at the Gandhi Samadhi to adopt Gandhian socialism and secularism in 1980 (and also earlier in 1977 while merging with the Janata Party) that it used the communal card to get the Hindu vote most aggressively.
It was the competitive communalism between the BJP and the Congress in early eighties, which resulted in aggravation of communalism in post-independence India as never before. It was thanks to it aggressive communal politics that ultimately the BJP came to power at the head of NDA coalition at the Centre. Thus the political parties are doing their power politics at the cost of lives of minorities and hence the security-related issues become most urgent for them. In each major riot that took place during the eighties more than 300 people were killed in every riot.

Apart from security-related issues there are other issues which are of material existence. Generally the Muslims left in India after the partition were mostly artisan caste Muslims in urban areas or landless peasantry and other categories of poor Muslims in rural areas, the rich and the powerful among them having left for Pakistan for greener pastures. The levels of illiteracy also have been lowest after dalits among the Muslims in India. Hardly any thing concrete has been done to alleviate their poverty.

The economic and social backwardness among the Muslims can be compared only with that of dalits even after fifty or more years of independence in India. There is no religion-based data available but the Gopal Singh High Commission Report on Muslims and dalits appointed by Mrs. Gandhi in 1980 gives us some idea about the economic backwardness of Muslims. The report was submitted in 1983. The comparative data whatever the Gopal Singh High Commission could gather, show that the plight of Muslims is no better than that of dalits, and in many respects worse than that of dalits.

Data collected from sample survey done by GOI shows that while 66.6% dalits live in kutccha houses, 65.9% Muslims too occupy kutchcha houses. And while 22.6% dalits have access to piped water only 19.4% Muslims have such an access. The poverty head count among the dalits is 50, among the Muslims is 43. And the capability poverty per cent among the dalits is 60, among the Muslims it is 56.

Among the dalits and Scheduled tribes the percentage of literacy is 40 while among the Muslims it is 50. The school enrolment rate among Muslims is only 62 percent almost at parity with the SCs and STs whereas among the upper caste Hindus it is 72%. Total percentage of matriculates among Muslims it is only 5.9 percent while among the SCs it is 4.9 per cent and among the caste Hindus it is 8.5 per cent.

What is deplorable is that most of the secular parties also have exploited Muslims to get their votes without going further than rhetoric. All these parties have been very strong on rhetoric but very weak in fulfilling their promises. The Muslim leaders have been no better in this respect. Their rhetoric has been no less seductive for the common Muslims. These Muslim leaders also have devoted much of their energy in bargaining for Muslim personal law than on economic upliftment of poor and backward Muslim masses. Some of them even use this rhetoric to fulfil their own ambitions. And some leaders have been even reckless in their irresponsible postures thereby strengthening the hands of communal forces in the majority community.

What is most urgent today is to build awareness among the Muslim masses of their exploitation by both communal and 'secular' politicians in India and as to what role they themselves can play by joining hands with those political forces with whom they can bargain for their better future than relying on mere rhetoric of their own leaders. Minorities have to be very skilful in utilising the space provided by democracy to them. The Muslim intellectuals can play creative role by setting up think tanks in areas of Muslim concentrations. For the first time the members of the Milli Council have conducted surveys in such areas in U.P. to advise Muslims as to whom to vote for in different areas to defeat the BJP. But this is one aspect of the problem. An over all strategy is also needed to do proper bargaining for real uplift of Muslims masses.

This needs real hard work and without such dedicated work improvement in the plight of Muslim masses along with others is not possible. Also, it is not enough to go for political alliance with dalits; there is also need for alliance in the field of economic and educational progress by drawing up common strategies with the weaker sections of the society as a whole. For this dalit and backwards and Muslim intellectuals will have to join hands to work out common strategies. Neither the Muslim political leadership nor the dalit political leadership can be divested of their electoral rhetoric nor their power seeking politics; it is only dedicated intellectuals who can play this role.

Indian Muslims: Myth and Reality

INDIAN MUSLIMS - MYTH AND REALITY
February 16-28, 2003
by Asghar Ali Engineer

Indian Muslims have been at the centre of controversy ever since the beginning of the British rule either because of their own behaviour or because of the policy of divide and rule pursued by the British or because of communal forces in both the communities. Even long after partition and independence of India the controversies do not die down; they are being intensified in the present situation.

Whenever I have the occasion to speak on Indian Muslims or communalism or secularism I am asked certain questions invariably, whatever the nature of gathering i.e. of intellectuals, of social activists or teachers or police officers. Certain myths about Indian Muslims are being propagated today especially by communal forces. It is, therefore, necessary to discuss some of these controversies and throw light on reality. Those who spread such myths are serious obstacles to the process of nation building and are bent upon destroying not only secular character of this country but also peace and harmony. However, this article is not addressed to these forces as they do so not out of lack of information but out of their own political agenda. This essay is addressed to those who become victims of this propaganda.

Before we throw light on these controversies it is necessary to throw some light on the concept of majority and minority. Some people keep on arguing that one should do away with this concept as all citizens have equal rights in Indian constitution irrespective of religion, caste and creed. There is no place for the concept of 'religious minority' and 'religious majority' in Indian democracy. All citizens of India have right to profess, practice their own religion and also propagate it. Even otherwise many well-meaning people also argue on these lines.

Well this is highly desirable in an ideal democracy where there is absolutely no discrimination on the basis of religion or caste and people of all religions enjoy their constitutional rights without letup or hindrance. In such a society there will be complete absence of communalism in open or subtle forms, much less repeated outbursts of communal violence.

There are not only strong prejudices against minorities - whatever the reasons - but these prejudices are getting stronger and stronger day by day thanks to intense propaganda by communal forces. Moreover, in no democracy in the world be it democracy in western countries, they have been able to do away with this category of racial or religious minority and majority. These categories exist in all western democracies too. In our case it is also our historical legacy further strengthened by partition of our country. Partition still rankles in our minds.

The framers of our constitution were also quite aware of this problem and hence they made special provisions for minority rights in the constitution specially in Articles 25 to 30. Also, since this problem is universal the UNO has also drafted declaration of minority rights. And it is not religious minorities only who insist on their minority status the majority itself has not been able to liberate itself from this category.

One usual question asked is why Muslims refuse to become part of Indian mainstream? It is thought that Muslims in India live in their own shell and refuse to be integrated in Indian mainstream. This is not true by and large. There may be few isolated cases but overwhelming majority of Muslims is very much part of Indian mainstream. Perhaps following their religion i.e. Islam itself is thought to be the cause of isolation. One is not required to renounce ones religion to become part of Indian mainstream.

The important question is who defines what Indian mainstream is? Is Indian mainstream constituted by upper caste Brahminical Hinduism? Certainly not. Then only a small percentage of Indians, probably not more than 20% people can qualify for that. A vast number of Hindus themselves will be left out from this concept of mainstream.

Our mainstream is basically constituted by our composite culture and Muslims have richly contributed to this composite culture. There have been great musicians among Muslims throughout history and continue to be even today. Bismillah Khan, Zakirali Khan, Vilayat Ali Khan, Fayyazali Khan and several others are shining stars of Indian music. Bismillah Khan was also honoured with 'Bharat Ratna' few years ago. In other fields of fine arts like painting, poetry and fiction writing there have been some of the greatest name of minority communities, particularly Muslims. Their contribution in these fields is recognised by India as well as the world.

In sports too religious minorities have made significant contribution be it cricket, hockey or any other sports. Some of the greatest names of cricket world come from amongst Muslims. In film world who can deny the contribution of Muslims? Be they directors, actors actresses and music directors and background singers, there have been great Muslim names. They are so well known that there is no need to mention them here. Dilip Kumar, Mehboob Khan, Naushad, Meenakumari are some of the legends from the film world. Among new generation Shabana Azmi, Shahrukh Khan, A.R. Rehman are great names. And if literature, music, fine arts, sports, films etc. do not constitute national mainstream what else does? And if it does where Muslims are lacking?

It is also not true that Muslims do not speak regional languages and insist on speaking Urdu. This is utterly mischievous propaganda. In Tamilnadu they speak Tamil, in Kerala they speak Malayalam, in Gujarat they speak Gujrati, in interior Maharashtra they speak Marathi or variant of Marathi, In West Bengal they speak Bengali, in Assam, Assamese and so on. In these regions which I visit frequently I need services of interpreters to speak to Muslims in their regional language. Now even in the Hindi heartland Muslims speak chaste Hindi and the new generation of Muslims do not know Urdu at all. In this respect Urdu has hardly any future in India. It will soon become like Persian or Arabic learnt by some specialists.

Another myth is that all Muslim children go to madrasas and avoid modern secular education. This too, like other myths about Muslims, is far from true. It is children of the poor who mostly go to madrasas because of their locations, convenient timings and lack of means to send them to secular schools though poor also have ambition to give good education to their children. No one from middle class families among Muslims sends their children to madrasas. They send their children to modern schools, and if possible to English medium school. Middle class families among Muslims are now sending their daughters also for higher education and this trend is on increase and Muslim girls are greater achievers in modern education than boys. All available data shows this clearly. Thus the myth that Muslims do not send their daughters to schools also needs to be demystified.

Another myth is that Muslims do not practice family planning. The Sangh Parivar publishes pamphlets saying Muslims believe in 'ham panch hamare pacchis' (We five, our twenty -five). Needless to say that this is highly mischievous propaganda. There are two parts of this popular myth: firstly Muslims marry four wives as per their shari'ah and that they beget highest number of children.

Both these myths need to be exposed. It is true Islamic shari'ah permits (does not make obligatory) to take four wives. But this does not mean all Muslim males take four wives. Even if they want sheer male/female ratio will not permit them to do so. In India according to 2001 census there are 935 female for every 1000 male. Among Muslims this ratio is even more adverse i.e. there are about 930 females for every thousand male. Even all males cannot get one wife according to this census figure let aloe one Muslim male marrying four wives.

Such propaganda is motivated by sheer animosity or prejudice. Fact is that highest number of bigamous marriages take place among tribals (about 14%) and Muslims are at the bottom with 5.6% bigamous marriages and upper caste Hindus have 5.8% bigamous marriages (according to the Government of India survey of 1974, the only all India survey ever conducted). If there is provision for polygamy in law it does not mean that all will take more than one wife and if there is ban on polygamous marriages it does not mean no one will take more than one wife. It is basically a problem of male-dominant culture than that of religion.

It is also not true that all Muslims beget large number of children and do not practice family planning. Family planning is also more related to literacy and income levels. All studies in India by demographers show that poor people of any religion tend to have more children and people of middle class (whatever the religion) tend to have less number of children. Among Muslims too, studies in Malegaon, Kanpur and other places clearly show that educated middle class practice family planning and poorer, illiterate Muslims do not. Thus it is poverty-related and not religion-related problem.

If there is relatively less family planning among Muslims it is because of poverty and lack of awareness than religion. Those Mullahs who come from poorer strata (and most of the mullahs come from this strata) do invoke religion for opposing family planning but it does not mean all Muslims necessarily listen to them. In states like Kerala there is more family planning among Muslims than Hindus in U.P. as Kerala Muslims are more educated than Hindus in U.P. Thus sterilisation among Kerala Muslims is 42.7% whereas among Hindus in U.P it is only 18.2 per cent. It is obviously poverty and literacy related phenomenon.

One should not go by politically motivated propaganda and examine reality, which is much more complex and multi-dimensional. It is in the interest of whole nation to work for uplift of Muslims and raise their income and educational levels. It will ensure better national integration and national progress. Mere hostile propaganda motivated by narrow political ends would prove to be a drag on national development.

Is BJP reassessing the Muslim factor?

By Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer

The recent defeat of BJP in U.P. elections has given it not only a great shock but also has made its leaders review its policies. The BJP in U.P. was deserted even by the Brahmins, its traditional vote bank. Generally up to mid-eighties the Brahmins were voting for the Congress. The Congress used to win elections by getting votes of Brahmins, Muslims and Dalits. However, when the Muslims deserted the Congress in late eighties on the question of laying foundation stone of Ramjanambhoomi Temple, the Congress lost power and so Brahmins also deserted the Congress as there was no chance of its coming to power.

The Brahmins switched their loyalty to the BJP as it was raising the issue of Ramjanambhoomi and had much better chances of coming to power. The Brahmins continued to vote for BJP as long as it had potential to capture power either by itself or through suitable alliances. However, during the 2007 assembly elections in U.P. Ms. Mayawati was the rising star for number of reasons, one was her alliance with both Brahmins and Muslims.

Ms. Mayawati was following the well-tested Congress formula of Brahmin-Muslim-Dalit alliance to win the elections. She had solid Dalit base and had also convinced the Brahmins to vote for her. Not only this she had wooed the Thakurs also and was sure to get votes of a section of Thakurs too. The Brahmins weighed all this and deserted the BJP who had any way never fulfilled its promise to build Ram Temple. The BJP was, however, hoping against hope that Brahmins might vote for it but drew blank.

The BJP also tried to woo Hindus by not only its Ramjanambhoomi rhetoric but also by circulating anti-Muslim CD. It could not of course get away with anti-Muslim C.D. as the Election Commission took notice of it and stopped it from using it. This was also a moral as well as a legal blow to the BJP. Having lost elections in its own den is serious set back to its senior leaders.

However, there is no easy way out for them. To revive itself in U.P. in the absence of any wave in its favour is an Herculean task. With 20 per cent Muslims of U.P. hostile to it and Brahmins also having deserted it is under pressure to change its virulent anti-Muslim course. But that is also not an easy task. The BJP senior leaders in Delhi, nevertheless are thinking on these lines. A Mushaira (poetic gathering) at the home of BJP leader Shahnawaz was organized and many BJP leaders participated in it. Many moderate BJP leaders also feel we have offered Muslim votes to Congress and other parties on a platter by alienating them. We should woo them even at this stage.

Of course this will not be easy both from Sangh Parivar’s as well as Muslim viewpoint. Sangh organizations like VHP and Bajrang Dal who even otherwise are accusing BJP leaders of soft pedaling Hindutva agenda will vehemently oppose this change of course. Their very existence will be in danger. On the other hand, after years of anti-Muslim propaganda, it would not be easy to carry conviction with Muslims, let alone aspire for the sizeable Muslim vote. They want to, however, convince Muslims that it was Vajpayee who initiated the Indo-Pak friendship process and also took initiative for solving the Kashmir problem. How far it will convince Muslims is anybody’s guess. The Congress could not win Muslims back in U.P. despite all efforts.

It is very interesting to note that Mayawati, encouraged by her success in U.P. in getting Brahmin votes, is trying to woo Brahmins in other states too. The Brahmins are also elated by the U.P. experiment in as much as it has opened new doors for increasing their political influence by supporting the BSP. Recently the All India Brahmin Federation (AIBF) has decided to support the BSP in all future elections in its convention in Tirupati. It also wants to embark on a special mission to improve Brahmin-Dalit harmony. The Shankaracharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peeth Swami Jayendra Saraswati is also scheduled to attend the convention.

Kotashankar Sharma, a Brahmin leader even commented that most of the communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims were due to the ignorance of and inability of the common man to see through the intrigues of vested interests. The AIBF conference is seen as an important event for Brahmins to become politically active again.

Thus the coming together of Brahmins from entire country to support Dalit leadership is a matter for great worry for the BJP. If this patterns of Brahmin-Dalit-Muslim alliance emerges on all India basis BJP will loose ground in other places too. After U.P. the BJP lost election in Goa also.

Surendra Kulkarni, media advisor to the then Prime Minister Shri.Vajpayee has been writing a series of articles in Indian Express suggesting that the BJP should woo Muslims to the mutual benefit of both. Mr. Kulkarni is even trying to prove that RSS has never been anti-Muslim and has been quoting from writings of Shri M.S.Golwalkar. In his column in Indian Express on 10th June 2007 he quotes Golwalkar from his interview given to Dr.Saifuddin Jeelani, an Arabic Scholar (Bunch of Thoughts, p-639) Golwalkar said, “According to our religious belief and philosophy, a Muslim is as good as a Hindu, it is not the Hindu alone who will reach the ultimate Godhead. Everyone has right to his path according to his own persuasion.�

Kulkarni further informs us that specifically refuting the charge that the Sangh’s concept of Indianisation meant Hinduisation of Muslims, Golwalkar observed, “Follow your own religion. The God of Islam, Christianity and Hinduism is the same and we are all His devotees. Give the people true knowledge of Islam. Give people true knowledge of Hinduism. Educate them to know that all religions teach men to be selfless, holy and pious…�

Kulkarni also quotes from Golwalkar to prove that Golwalkar did not support Uniform Civil Code; and was in favour of allowing Muslims to follow their Shari’ah law. He (Golwalkar) also maintained that “it is better that Muslims themselves reform their outdated laws and customs. I will be pleased if they come to the conclusion that polygamy is not good for them. But I would not like to impose my views on them.�

Significantly Mr.Kulkarni says, in the same interview, Golwalkar warns: “Uniformity is a pointer to the downfall of nations. I am in favour of preservation of diverse ways of life. At the same time, we should pay attention to ensure that these diversities nurture unity of the nation.�

Mr. Kulkarni therefore, is attempting to explore ways in which a fruitful BJP-Muslim and RSS-Muslim dialogue might start. One wishes Mr.Kulkarni all success. But he himself has been in journalism and a political analyst. Politics is not all about piety and noble sentiments, even if what Golwalkar said is true. Otherwise the RSS and BJP would not have been doing in their political propaganda that they have been doing.

I would like to ask Mr. Kulkarni that if M.S.Golwalkar was against Uniform Civil Code in early seventies why the BJP adopted it as its Hindutva agenda and still today it is on their agenda? Did Mr. Advani not preach Hindutva agenda at his aggressive best throughout late eighties and nineties? Were RSS leaders not aware of this? Or was Hindutva agenda formulated without RSS consent?

How about the textbooks taught in RSS run schools? Do they not spit venom against Muslims and grossly distort medieval history? If Golwalkar wanted people to be good Muslim and good Hindu, why Babri masjid was demolished and event celebrated? Was it being a good Hindu? Did RSS approve of it or not? Does RSS insist on Hindutva agenda or not? It often chides the BJP for not doing enough for fulfilling the Hindutva agenda.

How can one then have constructive dialogue between RSS and Muslims or BJP and Muslims. Did RSS leadership say a word in condemnation of what happened in Gujarat in 2002? A word opposing the Gujarat carnage from RSS leadership would have won over the hearts of millions of Muslims. On the contrary Narendra Modi became an apple of RSS eye. He has always been considered as an RSS man.

This is not to suggest that there should be no dialogue between Muslims and BJP or with RSS for that matter. But if Shri Kulkarni is suggesting dialogue at the BJP leadership’s instance in the changed circumstances, let him suggest where and how to begin. He must know that there is deep distrust between Muslims and Sangh Parivar and in the best of conditions it will take great deal of efforts to create even a semblance of trust. In any case even if there is possibility of any dialogue it is for the Sangh Parivar to take initiative and convince Muslims for a need for a dialogue. Writing such articles might be an exploratory process but much more substantial would have to be done.

A good beginning could be an apology for demolition of Babri Masjid and then an appeal to Muslims to come forward for a reasonable solution of the problem without hurting religious sentiments on either side. Such an eventuality seems nothing more than a distant dream for the present.

Is progressive Islam possible?

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Many people talk about progressive Islam. Is progressive Islam possible? Many are sceptical. But some maintain Islam need not be preceded with any attribute like ‘progressive’. Islam itself contains the attribute i.e. it is inherently possible. Why such contradictory positions? It is not surprising as Shari’ah-based rigid Islam and the Qur’an-based Islam make all the difference.

Again the question arises why this contradiction between the Shari’ah-based and Qur’an-based Islams? We will throw light on this in this paper. The Shari’ah-based Islam tends to be inflexible and non-responsive to modern conditions. Thus the practiced Islam is far more rigid and inflexible than the Qur’anic Islam which is based more on values than on customs and traditions.

No religion comes into existence in a vaccum. It bears the stamp of the society the religion is borne into expect otherwise is to fly in the face of reality. Islam was also borne in a given society which had its own customs and traditions, its own economy and its own geography and history. The Qur’an, undoubtedly a divine revelation, every verse of which carries divine stamp, also cannot be totally a historical, though it transcends bounds of history in moral and spiritual matters.

Thus Islam took concrete shape in given historical conditions and Shari’ah laws imbibed Arab customs and traditions. These customs and traditions are known as ‘adat in the Shari’ah terminology. What is unfortunate, these ‘adat too became integral part of Shari’ah along with the Qur’anic injunctions. Apart from this the Islamic jurists were also confronted with many problems when Islam spread to other parts of the world. And the Shari’ah law being the only state law of the time, it had to resolve these problems by resorting to qiyas (analogical reasoning). Thus qiyas also became part of Shari’ah methodology in view of these new problems.

As it was bound to happen the doctors of Islamic law differed from each other on many formulations of juristic issues and thus many schools of law came into existence of which four survived in the Islamic state. It is extremely interesting to study the evolution of these laws in the then given societies and early debates among Islamic jurists. It is a very fertile area for research in evolution of Shari’ah laws.

Over period of time these laws evolved by early jurists became ‘divine’ and doctors of law in subsequent period refused to re-visit these laws. It was forgotten that ethos of early medieval society, along with Arab ‘adat have gone into genesis of these laws. The whole Shari’ah became divine and hence immutable. Though learned Islamic theologians know this but they also let people think that the Shari’ah is wholly divine in order to perpetuate their hegemony. Also, no present-day jurist wants to be outcaste in an orthodox society.

Those modernists, who wish to re-visit these Shari’ah laws get isolated in an overwhelmingly orthodox Muslim society. This causes great deal of frustration among modernists who at times despair and even become rebels. This frustration is, to say the least, quite counterproductive. One needs tremendous patience and understanding. Without changing the societies, one cannot bring about much needed changes in the Shari’ah law, especially because it carries the stamp of divinity.

One also has to understand that the power of the ‘Ulama depends on hegemony of the Shari’ah law. If changes are brought in, these ‘Ulama who have been born and brought up in an orthodox milieu, have not developed modern skills and are unaware of modern developments, fear any change as it will deprive them of their skills and powers and hence oppose any change in the name of ‘divine law’.

Those who wish to reform and change, must understand this and first work hard to bring about changes in the society before changing the ‘Ulama. As long as the attitude and understanding of the people does not change, it will be near impossible to bring change among the ‘Ulama. Of late identity problems are assuming more complex dimensions and it is becoming even more challenging to usher in social change.

In the globalised world new challenges have emerged and religion and religious identity have assumed much greater importance. The west now considers Islam as a principal enemy and a source of terrorism. It also considers Islam as backward and unsuitable for modernisation and progress. The US foreign policy and pro-Israel attitude creates strong resentment among Muslims and they tend to cling more and more to orthodox Islam. Even educated Muslims give more importance to clinging to received Islam. Also popularity of western pop culture creates own powerful reaction.

It is not possible to ignore these challenges. It makes the task of reformers ever more difficult. The process of change started since 19th century in the Islamic world when it came into contact with colonial rule. But orthodox Islam has proved quite tenacious. Greater the confrontation between the west and Islamic world, more difficult to bring about change.

Any project for reform and change is seen as western conspiracy or westernisation of Islam. Also, thanks to the powerful interests of USA in retaining kings, sheikhs and military dictators in Islamic world, democracy is conspicuous by its absence in the world of Islam. Ironically the western scholars blame Islamic teachings for absence of democracy in Muslim countries.

Due to absence of democracy it becomes even more difficult to bring about social change in Muslim societies. One finds collaboration between dictatorial regimes and orthodox ‘Ulama. Thus these ‘Ulama support these dictatorial regimes and in turn they look after the interests of orthodoxy. The modern intellectuals thus find it difficult to create social support for progress and change.

Another strange dilemma the Islamic world is today faced with is the fast pace of external modernisation (i.e. modernisation of infra-structure, use of computers, television, electronic communication and other modern amenities) and stiff resistance of inner change. At best it creates more mental confusion and at worst rejection of modern science and reinforcement of orthodoxy. It is not easy to resolve this dilemma. Those intellectuals who successfully and creatively try to resolve this dilemma are far and few in between.

It is also interesting to note that the oil rich Middle Eastern countries are keen consumers of electronic and industrial goods, but have no willingness to usher in industrial revolution in their own countries. Thus at base the societies remain essentially feudal and this is the reason why the Islam developed during medieval ages still appeals to them. As the social base remains stagnant education system also does not change. In many Arab countries, for example, education still remains quite narrow sectarian and orthodox. Thus with such unresponsive education system one cannot hope to create modern thinking.

Several intellectuals and critics of education system in the Arab countries have pointed out that the syllabi create intolerance not only towards other religions but towards other Muslims sects also. If education system is so narrow how can it prepare young minds for responding creatively to new ideas and social change. Nothing less than thorough overhauling of education system is needed. This realisation is dawning on the authorities after some of these countries were struck with terrorist violence. But looking to delicate balance of forces in their country quick change is not possible.

These are some of the challenges being faced by the Muslim countries and Muslim communities in various countries. Even comparatively more developed countries like Malaysia still carry dead weight of the past and Malay identity asserts itself in the form of Muslim identity. The Malays until yesterday were quite backward compared to Chinese and Indians and thus Malay identity got politicised for assertion and Malay identity carried its own dead weight and hence domination of conservative ‘Ulama in religious affairs. One cannot neglect these social and political factors if one wants to understand domination of conservative forces in the Islamic world.

The example of Turkey and Algeria are quite interesting. Both countries had modernising dictatorships. But one should remember that imposing modernisation without any change in social base, often proves counterproductive. Kamal Ataturk forced people to accept westernisation. People accepted westernisation out of compulsion rather than any inner change and Islamic Party reappeared after some time. Still military holds ultimate power and does not allow assertion of religious identity. Thus at heart Turkey continues to be religious.

Algeria had adopted socialism during Ben Bella’s time. Of course military overthrew him and seized power. It rejected socialism but imposed secularism. The people of Algeria by and large, continued to be quite religious and when elections were allowed in 1990 the Islamic forces won. The military did not allow them to assume power and violence burst out which still continues.

Iran also went through the same experience during the Shah’s regime before it was overthrown by the Islamic revolutionaries. The Shah also imposed westernisation and modernisation from above. He abolished veil and made wearing of miniskirts and western dress compulsory. Same thing was attempted by King Amanullah of Afghanistan during thirties. He too paid the price and had to abdicate his thrown.

This makes it abundantly clear that modernisation cannot be imposed from above. The Western societies underwent evolution for more than two centuries before secular forces could entrench themselves. In those societies modernisation developed along with industrialisation and thorough changes at the base. Modernisation grew from below rather than being imposed from above.

It is interesting to note that western societies were faced with very different kind of challenge. Society was changing due to industrialisation and rapid progress in science and technology while the Church was trying to impose orthodoxy from above. Thus sharp contradictions developed between the Church and social forces of change. Since the very base was getting transformed Church couldn’t win. Victory was destined to be for modernism.

In Islamic world the process is just the opposite. Social base is entirely stagnant and few intellectuals mostly educated in western countries desire change from above. Even a profound scholar of Islam like Mohammad Abduh of Egypt, deeply influenced by western society, could not usher in change. He was outmanoeuvred by the conservative ‘Ulama. Conservative Islam is destined to be on the margins of Muslim countries. Countries like Syria and Morocco, where modernisation seems to be maintaining upper hand, has been kept going by dictatorships. The core is very much conservative in these countries. Conservative core can reassert itself if lid is off.

II

We would now like to deal with core teachings of Qur’an and the social movement in the pre-Islamic Arab society to which Qur’an was responding and the reasons why it succeeded. The Qur’an was responding to social change taking place in the Meccan society and it was the kuffar (unbelievers in the Qur’anic language) who were resisting change. Change was needed at two levels: at the moral and spiritual level and social and political. While change at moral and spiritual level found greater resistance, at social and political level there was lesser challenge.

Morally and spiritually Meccan society was not only stagnant but also degenerating. Inter-tribal corporations which were formed for carrying on international trade, brought windfall profits and consequent concentration of wealth. This concentration of wealth in the hands of a few resulted in neglecting even tribal morality. On the other hand, idol worship got associated with and symbol of spiritual stagnation and promotion of superstition. All sorts of superstitions were prevalent in the Meccan Arab society when Mohammad, the Prophet of Islam, was born.

The Meccan Arabs, most dominant, wealthy and of high tribal status, were quite proud of their newly acquired wealth and thought this wealth was eternal and their ultimate power (see Qur’an, chapter 104). Thus they became amoral in their attitude and as it often happens with neo rich conspicuous consumption became their only religion thus bringing spiritual degeneration among them. Some tribal customs and traditions were becoming positive obstacles in the process of change like sexual amorality, maltreatment of women and burying girl child alive apart from several others.

There was no tradition of acquiring knowledge and reading and writing was practically unknown. Ignorance and superstitions were thus order of the day. Taking pride in ones ancestry was highly prised. This was the only asset for them. They never strived for any higher truth or spiritual values. One can say there was total spiritual vacuum. The only religion of the book around them was Christianity but the Arabs were reluctant to accept it as it was basically associated with Roman imperialism, which they hated. The Arabs were fiercely independent and would not barter their independence with anything.

No society can exist in total moral and spiritual vacuum. Though few of its people were wealthy but mass of the people were poor and neglected. It was causing social tensions in the Meccan society. Tensions were assuming explosive proportions as we learn from pre-Islamic history of Mecca. Also some Qur’anic verses of Meccan origin like chapter 104 and chapter 107 indicate.

Thus it is interesting that the Qur’an responds to these problems and social tensions in Meccan society and lays great emphasis on knowledge (‘ilm), social and economic justice through redistribution of wealth to the weaker sections of society and moral and spiritual uplift. These were exactly the main problems of the Meccan society before Islam. Thus Islam emerged as a revolutionary movement and also moral and spiritual force.

Its emphasis on knowledge, on justice and moral and spiritual dimension of human life makes it inherently progressive. Thus one need not add ‘progressive’ to word Islam. Knowledge itself is liberating and combined with separate emphasis on justice makes it relevant much beyond its time of emergence. Islam of course responded to human social, moral and spiritual needs on different levels: immediate as well as transcendental.

Islam of the Qur’an has strong sympathy for weaker sections of society. The verse 28:5 is clear proof of this strong sympathy with the weaker sections of society. Women also belong to this section and hence Qur’an is the first revealed book that accords equal rights to women. The progressive scholars have often referred to the verse 2:228 which clearly stipulates equality of rights.

Not only this Qur’an concretely spells out her rights in marriage, divorce, inheritance and property she has been accorded equal dignity (see 17:70). Giving equal rights to women was, beyond any doubt, a unique contribution of Islam. To be ‘progressive’ this gender equality plays an important role. No one can claim to be progressive without accepting gender equality.

However, what is tragic is that these progressive dimensions of Islam were lost soon after social customs and traditions of Arab and non-Arab societies to which Islam spread. Pre-Islamic traditions proved to be more tenacious than one would think. Embracing Islam, or any religion, does not mean one completely gets emancipated from pre-conversion social and cultural values and ethos. Specially, the attitude towards women did not change. This attitude even got reflected, as pointed out before, in the attempts of the Islamic jurists to interpret the Qur’an and hadith.

The Shari’ah-based Islam thus incorporates such attitudes of the jurists who were product of their own society. Triple divorce is the best example of this attitude. This was essentially a pre-Islamic practice which the Prophet (PBUH) had condemned in no uncertain terms and Qur’an did not approve of it either. The verse 2:229, on being carefully read, makes it very clear. Yet, unfortunately, jurists used this very verse to hold validity of triple divorce in one sitting.

Of course there have been exceptions to the rule. Jurists and scholars like Ibn Taymiyyah refuted with convincing arguments the validity of triple divorce. This form of divorce, goes against the very spirit of the Qur’an and robs women of their dignity. How can men be allowed to throw a woman out by pronouncing three words even years of marital ties when the Qur’an requires arbitration before divorce (4:35).

Some of the Shari’ah laws deprive women of their human dignity and they again become a mere chattle as she was before emergence of Islam. Thus it is necessary to go back to Qur’an-based Islam as the Shari’ah -based Islam has severe limitations. While the Shari’ah-based Islam carries the stamp of medieval period, Qur’an-based Islam remains universal. It is universal Islam that is relevant to our age and ages beyond our own whereas the Shari’ah-based Islam remains confined to the time period when it was formulated.

It is great tragedy that Muslims have reified Shari’ah instead of values it is based on. One has to understand philosophy of law. No law, however exalted philosophy it is based on, can become permanent. Only the values on which these laws are based can be treated as permanent. Unfortunately Muslims, even jurists, are unable to make this important distinction. They treat Shari’ah as divine instead of principles, it is based on. Principles have been given by the Qur’an and hence are divine.

Shari’ah laws have been made by human beings and hence, at best, they are honest human approach to understand divine intentions in given circumstances. If circumstances change, understanding can also change and hence this change of understanding will be reflected in changed laws. This, in no way, will affect, divine principles and values.

Today scholars and intellectuals living in 21st century face new challenges, particularly, in respect of gender parity. Old Shari’ah laws cannot meet these new challenges successfully. It is, therefore, necessary to make necessary changes in these laws. It will implement Qur’anic values more effectively than the old laws. The resistance from orthodox ‘Ulama is more out of fear for their power rather than sanctity of the Shari’ah. Sanctity of Qur’an is more important than sanctity of the Shari’ah, at best, is an instrument and Qur’an fundamental. To uphold Qur’an and Qur’anic principles is more important than upholding Shari’ah laws and practices.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Islam and inter-faith engagement

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Islam is being projected as intolerant of other faiths. This perception of Islam is based on certain selected events, not on Qur’anic teachings or Prophet’s ahadith. It is one thing to judge a religion by its teachings and another to see it in the light of some instances of intolerance by some individuals. Also, such events are picked up selectively to suit certain assumptions, often politically motivated.

First of all it is necessary to closely study the Qur’anic position both normative and contextual. Then we have to study certain historical event of tolerance or intolerance, also in proper historical context. Also, one has to study the Qur’anic approach of engaging with other religions. What Qur’an emphasizes as common with other religions and what it differs with. Does it finds anything in common with other religions or totally rejects them? And what is its position where it totally rejects any religion?

QUR’AN AND OTHER RELIGIONS

Qur’an was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in two cities Mecca and Madina. The revelations began in Mecca and ended in Madina. Mecca was an international trade centre of great significance in that area and the main tribes of Mecca, particularly the Quraysh, a leading tribe of Mecca, was among those carrying on trade with Roman Empire who pursued Christianity. Then in Madina and in some other parts of Arabia, there were Jews. Thus Arabs were in touch with these two great Biblical religions. Arabs, for various reasons, had refrained from adopting these religions, though few Arabs on border region had embraced Christianity in its monophysite form, one different from Roman version.

In Mecca of course there were no Christians or Jews. The Meccan Arabs were all idol worshippers, having no revealed truth or scripture. The Prophet (PBUH) was also borne and brought up in Mecca. He seems to have instinctively rejected idol worship and began to meditate in the cave of Hira in search of truth when he receives revelation and he proclaims himself as the Prophet of Allah (Rasulallah or Messenger of Allah). He faced stiff opposition from his own tribe and his own close relatives.

However, he was deeply committed to his mission and readily faces severe persecution from his opponents. Despite this he proposes to his persecutors that “for you is your religion and for me is mine” (109:6). Thus Qur’an never imposed anything on unwilling hearts. It also pronounces same principle in surah revealed in Madina, “There is no compulsion in religion – the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break.(2:256)

Thus the Qur’an lays down a principle here: there is no compulsion in religion. Religion has something to do with ones heart and soul and appeals to ones inner conscience; and thus can never be imposed. All Qur’an does is to make right path distinct from path of error and leave it to people to accept right path or that of error. Those who accept right path are laying their hand on a firmest handle which will never break.

Thus both in Meccan and Madinian revelation Qur’an is firm about one thing, there cannot be any forcible imposition of religion, one can only show right path or warn about consequences of pursuing path of error and then leave it to the choice of the person concerned. Thus an individual and his/her conscience is at the centre of decision making. There is no mistaking about it.

The Meccans did not possess higher truth; they were immersed in superstition woven around various gods and goddesses on one hand, and, the upper class Meccan merchants were by and large hedonists – making super profits, enjoying life and hardly cared for morality and truth. The masses suffered due to poverty and neglect and found some solace in superstitious beliefs. The Qur’an tried to address this situation in Mecca and exhorted the Meccans to believe in revealed truth and not to consider this worldly life as an end in itself. The upper class Meccan merchants ridiculed the very idea of any revealed truth. Material pleasures was an end in itself for them.

However, there were other religions present in the area i.e. Judaism and Christianity. While Qur’an termed Meccans who possessed no higher truth as unbelievers (kafirs – literally those who hide truth) and Christians and Jews who possessed revealed scriptures as ahl al-Kitab (i.e. people of the book). The Qur’an accepts all Biblicals prophets from Adam to Christ and those in between as prophets of Allah and calls them all either as anbiya’ (plural of nabi – prophet) or rusul (plural of rasul – messenger).

In fact Qur’an requires Muslims to believe in all the prophets and forbids to believe in some and not to believe in others. Thus Qur’an says: “Those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and desire to make a distinction between Allah and His messengers and say: We believe in some and disbelieve in others; and desire to take a course in between – these are truly disbelievers and We have prepared for disbelievers an abasing chastisement.” (4:150-51) that one should not make distinction between one prophet and the other is repeated in verses like 2:136, 2:285 and 3:86.

Thus Qur’an accepts truth content of all previous religions as this truth was brought by Allah’s messengers. Thus Qur’an mentions various prophets by name in chapters like “The Family of al-Imran” (chapter 3), “Yunus”, - Jonah (chapter 10), “Ibrahim – Abraham (chapter 14), “Al-Qasas”, The Narrative (Chapter 28 and so on. The running thread of the Qur’an is the concept of what many Qur’anic scholars like Shah Waliyullah, Maulana Azad and others have called wahdat al-din i.e. unity of religions.

Shah Waliyullah has developed this concept in his opus magnum Hujjat Allah-i- al-Balighah [1] He extensively argues on the basis of various Qur’an which says, “To every nation We appointed acts of devotion; which they observe, so let them not dispute with thee in the matter, and call to thy Lord. Surely thou art on a right guidance.” (22:61). This is again repeated in the verse 2:148 which says, “Everyone has a direction to which he turns (himself), so vie with one another in good deeds.”

The clear implication of this verse is that there are different directions (and also different ways) of saying ones prayer. That is not the essence, it at best is symbolic. However, what is of substance is good deeds. Thus different communities may continue to pursue their ways and directions of prayer but what is more important is to excel each other in good deeds.

The Qur’an has expressed this in yet another way in verse 5:48 wherein it says: “For every one of you We appointed a law and a way. And if Allah had pleased He would have made you a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you. So vie one with another in virtuous deeds”.

This verse clearly implies that Allah did not create all human beings as one community but created them as different sects and communities with distinct ways. If Allah had willed He could have created them all as one community but He did not do so to test them whether they can live in peace and harmony despite these differences and vie one with the other in good deeds.

Thus Qur’an clearly accepts plurality of religions and ways of life and different laws and treats it as a challenge for humanity to live and coexist with tolerance towards each other and strengthen forces of peace and moral order. Values and moral order is much more basic than differences of faith and devotion. So Qur’an in no way adopts hostile attitude towards other religions.

It also exhorts its followers “Abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest, exceeding the limits, they abuse Allah through ignorance. Thus to every people; have We made their deeds fair-seeming. (6:109)

In this verse Qur’an adopts very practical view towards other belief systems. It says one should not abuse those who worship other than Allah as they will also abuse Allah out of ignorance and thus it would lead to conflict or violence and spirit of coexistence will be destroyed. It then makes very important statement that for every people or community we have made their deeds fair-seeming i.e. every people think their way of belief and their way of living is best. Let everyone believe what they want to believe and all of you will ultimately return to Him and He will decide who was right and who was wrong.

This is very practical approach to maintain peace and promote coexistence in the world as world is plural and any belief system which exerts its superiority is bound to result in conflict. Each religion and religious belief system is unique. There may be outward differences but there is inward unity and it is this inward unity which is emphasized by the Qur’an on the basis that all religions have been brought by Allah’s prophets and each people have their own law and their own road. According to ones hadith Allah has sent in all 1,24000 prophets and he has sent His prophet’s to all nations (13:7).

It is interesting to note that on the basis of the verse 13:7 many Sufi saints in India maintained that Allah must have sent His prophet’s to India too. How can he forget a great country like India? Thus they concluded that Ram and Krishna who are highly revered in India might have been guides sent by Allah to Hindus. Mazhar Jan-i-Janan, a great Sufi saint of Qadiriya silsila in 18th century India had cogently argued that Hindus are monotheists as according to Hindu Shashtra (scriptures) Ishwar (god) is nirankar and nirgun (i.e. without shape and without attributes) and according to Mazhar Jan-i-Janan it is highest form of tawheed (i.e. oneness of God) He also argues we should not take Hindus to be kafirs just because they worship idols.

He then argues that kafir is one who possesses no truth as pre-Islamic Arabs possessed none and refused to accept it when it was revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) and hence they were denounced as kafirs. But Hindus possess truth in the form of Bedas (Vedas) and Hindu scriptures do not prescribe idol worship. It is popular practice among Hindus who cannot conceive of abstract God and hence need idols to reach God who has no shape or attributes. Thus according to Mazhar Jan-i-Janan these idols are like Sheikh for Sufis who act as a guide to reach God.[2]

Thus it is very helpful attitude for living together and respecting each others faith on the basis of inner unity of all religions. There were other religious thinkers in India who promoted mutual understanding. The most important thinker was Dara Shikoh who studied Hindu religion through its original sources. Dara Shikoh was a Moghul prince appointed as successor to the throne of India by his illustrious father Shah Jahan but ultimately lost to Aurangzeb, his brother who defeated Dara Shikoh and became Emperor of India.

Dara Shikoh translated The Upanishads from Sanskrit into Persian and named it Sirr-e-Akbar (The Great Mystery). He argued in this Persian translation that Hindus are monotheists and he said after Qur’an he found concept of tawheedi in Upanishads. He maintains that the Qur’anic verses 56:77-79 refer to Upanishads. He feels certain that the hidden book (kitab-i-maknun) is a reference to this very ancient book.[3] Dara’s Majma’ul Bahrayn is a classical work of Islam’s engagement with other religions in India.

In this book Dara Shikoh compares religious terminology of Islam with Hinduism and conclusively shows that difference is of language, not of actual ideas behind it. He often refers to Hindus as muwahhidun-i-Hind i.e. monotheists of India. He says that mootheists of India also believe in qiyamat-i-kubra (i.e. the Great Day of Judgment) and in Hindu scriptures it is referred to as mahapralay. According to Dara Shikoh; Hindus also believe in heaven and hell and that after residing in heaven and hell mahapralay will occur He also quotes verses from Qur’an like 72:9, 34:79, 68:39, 55:26-27 and 72:9 to prove his point.[4]

Dara Shikoh also compares the concept of mukti with the Sufi concept of fana fi’ Allah i.e. annihilation in Allah as ultimate liberation and quotes the verse from Qur’an 72:9. He then throws detailed light on the concept of mukti (liberation) in Hindu religion and considers brahmanda (the Universe) as the God. According to him brahmanda in Islam is referred to as Alam-i-Kubra which manifestation of Allah.[5]

Thus there have been very positive efforts by some Muslim thinkers to engage with other religions. They upheld the Qur’anic spirit in this regard. While the Qur’an differs from Christians and Jews on certain crucial points, yet advises Muslims to engage with them in a manner which will promote understanding, not conflict. Thus Qur’an says, “And argue not with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) except by what is best.” And this verse further emphasizes commonness among these religions when it says, “We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your God is One, and to Him we submit.” (29:46)

Again emphasizing commonness between Islam and people of the book, Qur’an says, “O People of the Book, come to an equitable word between us and you, that we shall serve none but Allah and that we shall not associate aught with Him, and that some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah: bear witness. But if they turn away, then say: Bear witness, we are Muslims.

The prophet wrote letters to Heraculeus in the year 6 A.H. (Bukhari 1:1) and similar letters were written to other potentates among whom was Muqauqis, the king of Egypt. According to Maulana Muhammad Ali, “In this verse the Jews and the Christians are called upon the basic principles of the faith of Islam. The reference in the sentence some of us shall not take others for lords is to the practice prevailing then among Jews and Christians, and at present among Muslims too, to take religious leaders as invested with Divine powers, which is more clearly enunciated in 9:31: ‘They have taken their doctors of law and their monks for lords besides Allah (9:31)”.[6]

We find in Qur’an verse like 2:136 which states, “Say, we believe in Allah and (in) that which has been revealed to us, and (in) that which was revealed to Abraham, and Ishmael and Issac and Jacob and the tribes, and (in) that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and (in) that which was given to the prophets from their Lord, we do not make any distinction between an of them and to Him do we submit.” (2:136)

This is very significant verse which shows commonness between these faiths and respect in which Muslims should hold all these prophets and are told not to make any distinction between one prophet and the other. It is part of their belief and one must act accordingly. Those who show any distinction cannot be true Muslims.

However, there are verses in the Qur’an which some can cite to show differences from Jews and Muslims and Christians too. Thus there is verse in the Qur’an which states regarding Jews, “Thou wilt certainly find the most violent of people in enmity against the believers to be the Jews and the idolaters; and thou wilt find nearest in friendship to the believers to be those who say, We are Christians. That is because there are priests and monks among them and because they are not proud.” (5:82)

Why Christians are described as friends and Jews as violent the reason is clearly explained. It is not because Jewish religion is more inimical to Islam and Christianity less so. Reason is more political struggle between Muslims and Jews. The Holy Prophet had tried his best to woe Jews when he migrated to Madina. He entered into a covenant with them and gave them full freedom to follow their own religion. He even prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. But Jews never took kindly to the Prophet nor to the Muslims.

They saw Prophet and Muslims as those who were dominating Madina over which they had hegemony so far. The Meccan Muhajirs also were expert traders and the Jews feared these migrants will capture their trade. The Jews also often acted as arbiters between Aus and Khazraj, the two main tribes of Madina.

The Jews violated the covenant and conspired with the kuffar (unbelievers) of Mecca who attacked Madina. As per the covenant the Jews should have cooperated with the Muslims in defending Madina. Instead they helped Meccan kuffar and thus earned enmity with Muslims. On the other hand Christians so far had cooperated with Muslims. The Negus of Abyssinia had given refuge to Muslim migrants to Ethiopia before they migrated to Madina. Also, when a Christian delegation from Najran met the Prophet (PBUH) led by Abdul Masih, he (Prophet) met them inside his mosque and Prophet treated them with respect and in friendly way.

The verse also refers to Christian priests and monks who are not proud and always engaged in worshipping God and so there was no question of any clash in political sense. So controversy with Jews and calling them violent in enmity is not on account of their religion but on account of their socio-economic and political clash with Muslims in Madina. The Jews of Madina never extended hand of friendship towards Muslims despite all sincere efforts prophet made for friendship with them.

At one level the Qur’an treats all human beings on equal plane whatever their creed or colour or nation or tribe. It considers all as equally honourable. Thus a verse in Qur’an declares, “And surely We have honored the children of Adam, and We carry them in the land and the sea, and We provide them with good things, and We have made them to excel highly most of those whom We have created.” (17:70)

Here all human beings are equal. Qur’an also exhorts Muslims not to discriminate between people on any ground race, language, nation etc. All colours, languages and races are signs of God. Thus says the Qur’an “And of His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth and the diversity of your tongues and colours.” (30:22). Thus black colour is as much creation of Allah as white and Arabic as much as other languages. So no one should claim superiority over the other.

The Qur’an also takes very practical view that all human beings cannot believe in one religion or the other. They are bound to incline towards different faiths. It poses question to the prophet “If thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Will thou then force them till they are believers?” (10:99). In another verse Qur’an puts the same thing little differently: May be thou will kill thyself with grief, sorrowing after them, if they believe not in this announcement.” (18:6) Read these two above verses with “there is no compulsion in religion” (2:256) and Qur’anic approach in plurality of faiths becomes very clear.

The Qur’an no where intends that all should accept Islam. It is not practical at all. Thus only way is to ensure freedom of faith, on one hand, and, coexistence, harmoniously, on the other. The truth of this assertion we are discovering in the contemporary world. Plurality of faiths is on the increase due mainly to economic migrations from poorer underdeveloped to highly developed nations.

ISLAM AND WESTERN WORLD

At one time Europe and North America were mono-religious, mono cultural though Europe was multi-lingual. Today both Europe and north America have become multi-religious and they have developed theory of multi-culturalism as people of different religions and cultures are on the increase and they are substantial minorities in these regions now. The days of mono-religion are a history now.

Among others Muslims are the largest minority both in Europe and in North America. Naturally it leads to religious tensions. In European history there have been political clashes between Muslims and Christians. Crusades are part of European history and it is on account of these crusades that stereotype “sword in one hand and Qur’an in the other” persists in the European psyche even today. And thanks to the ongoing conflict between USA and the Middle East, this conflict has still not been resolved.

If anything it is getting exacerbated in recent times and 9/11 attack has further intensified it. The extremists among Muslims resort to violence in response to violence by the West in Middle East and it has become a vicious circle. Strong prejudices have been created against Islam in this region. The Muslim extremists invoke slogan of jihad (wrongly of course) to commit violence in western countries and this strengthens the stereotype that Islam is religion of violence and war and does not want to co-exist with other religions, especially Christianity.

We have seen above how wrong this impression is. But this is very widespread impression throughout non-Muslim world. What happens in history cannot be ascribed to Islam. I have already discussed in detail elsewhere[7] that what happens in history is empirical reality, not religious truth and that religious teachings should be compared with religious teachings and history of religion with history of another religion and not with teachings of that religion.

Islam always coexisted with Judaism and Christianity peacefully on religious plane though there were clashes between Muslims and Christians in medieval ages (and not between Islam and Christianity). These clashes were among the ruling classes and not among Muslim and Christian masses. The Western press projects clash of interests as clash of religions and on the other hand, the Muslim ‘fundamentalists’[8] too make it appear as religious clash.

There is no clash of civilizations either as Prof. Huntington[9] would like us to believe. The main thesis of Huntington is fundamentally based on wars and clashes between Christian and Muslim rulers, and not on clash of religious teachings. Even in medieval ages there were no clashes of religion, mostly clashes of empires – Christian and Muslim. Both Jews and Christians held important posts in Muslim administrations. Jews and Christians always lived in peace in Muslim countries though they were persecuted in Europe and were forced to live in ghettos. They never faced such persecution in Islamic countries.

Ahmed M.H.Shboul observes in his paper “Arab Islamic Perceptions of Byzantine Religion and culture”, “Given the religio-political and military character of the rise of the Arab Islamic power, the sympathetic and tolerant attitude of Islam toward Christianity and Christians, and the actual history of the Arab-Byzantine military conflict, can one describe this conflict, during the period of the Arab conquest and after, as simply or even principally a religious conflict? It is my submission that such a description would be inaccurate and misleading.” He then quotes Norman Daniel ‘it is already to beg the question to speak of a religious war, before we have established that that is what it was.’”[10]

Mr. Ahmed further points out, referring to complex issues involved in Arab-Byzantine wars of conquest, “ It is also true that Arab-Byzantine sources speak of economic, political, and tribal factors in this conflict. In a real sense, early Arab Islamic sources seem to depict the war more as a conflict between ‘Arab and Byzantines’ rather than; between ‘Muslims and Christians’ – a fact that is also confirmed by Syriac sources. At the practical level large numbers of Christian Arab warriors from Syria joined the Muslim armies against the Byzantines, while other Christians (and Samaritans) cooperated in several ways with the advancing Muslim Arabs.[11]

Thus we see even in medieval ages the wars fought between Christians and Muslims were not of religious but political and ethnic nature in which Christian Arabs cooperated with Muslim Arabs. We need to change erroneous perceptions of these wars between Christians and Muslims. It will have far reaching consequences for contemporary nature of conflict. Islam as a religion engages tolerantly and meaningfully with other religions, especially Christianity and Judaism.

Today a large number of Muslims live in Europe and North America. A substantial number of Muslims live as minority in the world, mostly under democratic dispensations. Thus there is great change between medieval and contemporary reality. In medieval ages Muslim empire was spread in large parts of the world and most of the Muslims lived under Islamic dispensation through there were some Muslims living in minority as well during those days.

Thus whole fiqh literature developed then by the Muslim jurists had its own context. Firstly Muslims were in majority. Secondly Muslims were rulers and Muslim regimes were monarchical and non-democratic. Thus whole corpus of fiqh (jurisprudence) in respect of Muslim and non-Muslim minorities must be reviewed and new fiqh should be evolved which should fit into new context. The concepts of darul harb (domain of war) and darul Islam are totally outdated today.

The new fiqh has to be evolved keeping in mind democratic regime, on one hand, and on the other human rights and minority rights regimes, on the other. Our jurists should not mechanically repeat the opinion of medieval jurists who were working in very different context. They responded to various problems in the light of their own experience. We have to respond in the light of our own context.

The Quranic concept of ahl dhimma (people whose responsibility was on Muslim rulers for their safety) for the people of the book was very creative one and responsible one. For these services to protect them Qur’an suggested what is called jizyah (a levy for protection of the dhimmis). However, it does not hold any more. The very concept of ahl dhimma cannot be applied today in the changed context. The Qur’anic concept of dhimmi was contextual, not normative.

Today all minorities have been guaranteed equal political rights under the second generation of UNO charter of rights and international law. The new minority fiqh (jurisprudence) has to take this into account. Non-Muslim minorities are as much entitled to these rights as much as the Muslim minorities in non-Muslim countries like European countries, North America, India and several other countries.

The minority regime also guarantees religious and cultural rights. Of course under Qur’anic concept of ahl-dhimma also religious and cultural rights were guaranteed but not political rights. Now even political rights also have to be guaranteed. At one level, minorities are accorded full citizenship and in addition cultural and religious rights. Thus new minority fiqh has to take all this into account and Muslim countries also should make these rights available to their Christian or Jewish or other minorities.

At one level they all should be treated as citizens with full political rights and also they should be given full religious and cultural rights. Unfortunately in some Muslim states non-Muslim minorities do not enjoy full citizenship rights and though they are free to practice their religion they are still treated as secondary citizens. And in some Muslim countries they are not free to maintain their religious places or establish places of worship.

The Qur’an, on the other hand, wants all religious places to be equally protected and allowed to be flourished. It says, “Those who are driven from their homes without a just cause except that they say: Our Lord is Allah. And if Allah did not repel some people by others, cloisters, and churches, and synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled down. And surely Allah will help him who helps Him. (22:40).

This the Qur’an guarantees perfect religious freedom not only of Muslims but of all other religions like Christianity and Judaism. Synagogues and churches should be protected along with the mosques. Minority rights must be guaranteed both when Muslims are a minority and when non-Muslims are in a minority. In medieval fiqh this spirit of Qur’anic injunction, clear as crystal, was lost more because of arrogance of power, than anything else.

In minority fiqh which I am suggesting this Qur’anic spirit needs to be revived. Large number of Muslims alive as minority today in this globalised world and in most of the countries of West they enjoy equal citizenship rights. Islam today is flourishing in secular democratic countries though in practice there are some problems also.

Secular democracy has its own impact on laws and belief systems which have evolved under secular democracy. Thus secular democracy in western countries is impacting on Islam too. There is interesting parallel with communism. Communism also developed authoritarian system in Soviet Union. People did not enjoy basic freedoms. But communism in Europe was greatly influenced by democratic west and some communists developed the concept of Euro-communism which was more open and respectful of other systems and democratic in nature.

There is, similarly great need for developing concept of Euro-Islam which will respect pluralism, multi-culturalism and will be open to other faiths and would respect other faiths. It will also adjust itself to western way of life though not necessarily accept it. There is also question of practicing Shari’ah law. Most of the Muslims insist on practicing Shari’ah law as they have inherited. This creates complex problems.

The hijab controversy has rocked many European countries including France and England. French government has banned hijab in educational institutions which itself goes against concept of multi-culturalism, but Muslims also have to re-think some of their practices. In U.K., for example a school teacher refused to take off her niqab (which covered her face and only two eyes peeping out) even inside the class room insisting it is her religious belief.

This is simply not true. The Qur’an no where requires women to cover their face. It only insists on lowering the gaze and dress modestly (see 24:31). No Islamic jurists have insisted on covering face. All agree that face and hands could be kept open. At the most it is cultural practice developed in highly feudalized society and is being forced on their women folk.

In minority fiqh a review of such cultural practices which are practiced under religious garb, there should be re-think on these issues. No one suggests that Muslim women should adopt western way of dressing (which men have readily adopted without any Shar’I problems), but that they should go for modest dressing which will not make their sexuality focus of attention.

However, traditional Muslims go by opinion of certain jurists rather than by he injunctions of the Qur’an. The niqab is not at all in keeping with the Qur’anic injunction nor has it anything to do with Islamic teachings on sexual conduct. It is part of culture in certain Arab countries like Saudi Arabia which is mechanically imitated by Muslims in other countries as they think Saudi Arabia is a model Islamic state.

Such behavior creates problems between westerners and migrant culture. Of course, Europe and other western countries of North America have accepted multi-culturalism, and even religious pluralism, yet if one insists one would not go for any compromise or give and take spirit, tensions will arise between two cultures. One should not violate basic principles but should work for give and take.

In medieval fiqh there are surely feudal cultural elements which do not suit modern democratic culture based on human rights and women’s rights. The new fiqh, if based only on normative Qur’anic injunctions is developed it will go a great way in accommodating modern values and Muslim women will have much greater latitude. In western society basic freedoms play very crucial role and medieval culture, being feudal, limits role of basic freedoms in life and imposes authoritarian culture, calling it ‘divine’.

However, Euro-Islam will have to come to terms with role of basic freedoms in western society and shall have to develop a new fiqh fit for democratic culture. As Qur’an requires Muslims to respect other religions, it also requires them to respect other cultures, if they do not violate core Islamic morality. The Muslim intellectuals will have to play creative role in non-Muslim societies for developing its new fiqh.

In Muslim countries traditional ‘ulama have great influence and hence it is very difficult to bring about any change but in European countries conditions are different. No doubt traditional ‘ulama are being imported to these countries also and they deliver their traditional sermons in the mosques. And many Muslims do get influenced by these sermons and want to practice traditional Shari’ah.

Traditional Islam appeals to them for another reason also. That reason is sense of alienation and this sense of alienation pulls them back to their traditional native culture. Also racial attacks further aggravate this sense of alienation and it becomes very difficult to bring about accommodation between two different cultures. Of late political situation has also become quite hostile to Islam and Muslims.

Some Muslim youth are getting drawn to al-Qaeda network for very complex reasons and who are responsible for political policies towards Islamic world, particularly the Middle East. Today Islam is being equated with violence and fanaticism, thanks to these acts of violence.

The Qur’an lays great stress on wisdom so much so that it says, “And whoever is given wisdom, he indeed is given great good” (2:269) Why Muslims do not use wisdom to respond to the situation they are faced with. Responding with violence results in great loss of innocent lives and creates more hostility for them. You can match ability of western powers to use violence with bomb explosions here and there. It does no good at all. Instead if they use wisdom they can work to build favorable opinion in these countries and isolate the western rulers in the world opinion.

There are thousands of people in the western countries who oppose neo-imperialist wars by America. One must build on their support. By resorting to violence they earn media hostility too and in democratic era media make and unmake opinion. Wisdom lies using media sympathy through peaceful means. Thus there should be zero tolerance for violence. Wisdom lies in that.

The medieval Islamic fiqh lays more stress on jihad (through concept of jihad) jihad also got distorted in the medieval environs wherein things were decided by sword and there was no concept of rights of people. This fiqh should be rejected and new fiqh should lay stress on peace and human rights. Peace is very central to Islam. Salam (peace) is integral to Islam as it is Allah’s name also.

Thus in new fiqh salam, rahmah, hikmah and ‘adl (peace, compassion, wisdom and justice) should be central values. And these values as integral part of new fiqh should be taught in all madrasas. These are most fundamental Qur’anic values. This will change entire image of Islam. It will be more humane and will command respect from its worst enemies. A new leadership should replace traditional ulama who will find difficult to develop new approach.

This might appear utopian to many but it is this Islam which will lead to honourable solution for our complex problems and will ensure peaceful coexistence in this war torn world due mainly to powerful American interests. But we should remember we strengthen American hands by responding through sporadic violence. Let us hope these ideas will generate response from new generation living in western countries.

[1] - See chapter on “Essence of religions is one and laws and ways are different” in Shah Waliyullah Al-Hujjat al-Balighah (Deoband, India, nd) vol. I. pp-212-216.

[2] - see Mirza Jan-i-Janan ke Khutut tr. From Persian into Urdu by Khaliq Anjm (Deli, 1989) pp-131. And also see pp- 131-34.

[3] - See Introduction to Dara Shikoh’s Majma’ul Bahrayn (Co-mingling of Two Oceans) by M.Mahfuz al-Haq (reprinted by The Asiatic Society, Calcutta, 1982), pp-13

[4] - See Asghar Ali Engineer “A Muslim View of Hinduism” presented at a seminar in Glasgow University, Scotland (to be published in a book soon)

[5] - Majma’ul Bahrayn op.cit. pp-106-107 quoted in Asghar Ali Engineer ibid.

[6] -The Holy Qur’an tr. By Maulana Muhammad Ali (Lahore, Pakistan 1973) pp-150, footnote 446.

[7] -see “Islam as Religion and Islam as History” in Islam and Modern Age vol. X. No.4 April 2007.

[8] - Here I am using ‘fundamentalism’ in the pejorative sense in which western media uses though in Islam fundamentalism has positive connotation.

[9] - Samuel P. Huntington The Clash of Civilizations and The Remaking of World Order (Penguin Books,1996).

[10] - see Jacque Waardenburg ed. Muslim Perceptions of Other Religions – A Historical Survey (Oxford University Press, 1999) pp-125.

[11] - quoted from Azdi Futuh al-Sham, pp-111 and 130 in “Arab Islamic perceptions of Byzantine Religion and Culture” pp-126.

Islam and Muslims in India: problem of identity and existence

ISLAM AND MUSLIMS IN INDIA- PROBLEMS OF IDENTITY AND EXISTENCE
December 16-31, 2000
by Asghar Ali Engineer

(I)

Introduction

Islam entered into India almost in the lifetime of Muhammad the Prophet of Islam. Generally it is thought that it came into India by way of invasion by Muhammad bin Qasim, a young general sent by Yusuf bin Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq during the Umayyad period in the later part of the 7th century A.D. But this is not true. Islam entered India through Kerala on the West Coast through the Arab traders in a peaceful manner. The region called Malabar in Kerala is Indianised form of ma'bar which in Arabic means passage. Since the Arab traders passed through that region often it came to be known by that name. The Arabs, in fact, had been trading since pre-Islamic days and then embraced Islam after the Prophet began preaching. They married the local women in Kerala and their offspring spread in different parts of that region. Also, later they were accompanied by sufi saints who converted many local people, mainly from lower classes to Islam. Thus this was the real entry point of Islam into India.

However, as far as north India was concerned Islam entered into India through invasion of Muhammad bin Qasim and it has become the sore point in relations between Hindus and Muslims. The invasion by Qasim was followed by many other invasions, including those of Shihabuddin Ghauri and Mahmud Ghaznavi and the later demolished the temple of Somnath which rankles in the memory of upper caste Hindus. This is projected with prominence in the textbooks of history which perpetuates the bitter memory of hostility and animosity. Such events are not projected in proper context and are ascribed to Islam's 'hatred of Hindus and Hinduism'. However, such hostile projections are product of colonial period from nineteenth century onwards. It is not true that the Muslim rulers simply hated the Hindus and humiliated them throughout their rule. It is later construction. The Hindu and Muslim rulers had mutual alliances as well as hostilities depending on struggle for power.

In fact many Hindu rulers invited the Muslim invaders including Babar in order to settle scores with local rulers. Also, one ruling Muslim dynasty fought against another ruling Muslim dynasty. When Babar, the first Mughal ruler invaded India, Ibrahim Lodhi was ruling over India and he was invited to defeat the Lodhi ruler by Rajput rulers who were, by themselves, unable to defeat the Lodhi dynasty. Still Babar is projected in contemporary school textbooks as invader and strongly condemned for his invasion of India. These constructions and re-constructions of medieval history are done to cater to contemporary political needs. The period between 10th and early 19th century is often described in these textbooks as 'Muslim period' and the period before as the 'Hindu period'. The historians maintain that these periods cannot be described by religious denomination of the ruler, as there were serious differences, hostilities and conflicts between the rulers following the same religion. Muslims fought against Muslims and Hindu ruler against Hindu ruler.

It is important to note that neither Muslim nor Hindu community was homogenous one. Both the communities were highly stratified horizontally as well as vertically. Medieval societies were hierarchical along caste and class lines and the lower rungs of the community did not exactly harmonise with the upper rungs. Even the upper caste upper class Muslims hated their brethren of lower castes and class. There was greater harmony between Hindus and Muslims of lower castes than between lower and upper castes of the same community. Common customs and traditions and mutual influences among these lower castes and classes amply demonstrate it. However, it is totally ignored in the contemporary history writing especially at school levels. These history textbooks have become breeding ground of communalism and communal hatred between these two communities.

The British rulers initiated this kind of history writing in order to divide their subjects so that they could rule without serious challenge to their colonial power. They also deliberately or innocently homogenised the two communities ignoring all differences and as if their interests were uniform. The Indian National Congress, which was an umbrella organisation of freedom fighters wisely adopted political philosophy of secularism as its foundational philosophy. It helped bring the elite of two communities together to fight for freedom. When Mahatma Gandhi appeared on the scene he involved the masses of people in the freedom movement by championing their causes. He also tried to weld Hindus and Muslims together by taking up religious issues like the Khilafat issue after the first world war when the British sought to dismember the Turkish empire. The Muslims responded enthusiastically to Gandhiji's call and even traditional 'Ulama fraternised with him on the issue and supported the Indian national Congress and its concept of secular composite nationalism.

However, soon after the Khilafat movement serious differences developed between a section of Hindus and Muslims mainly on power-sharing formula. The Motilal Nehru Committee was appointed to solve the 'communal question' but both Hindu and Muslim leaders of communal dispensation opposed its recommendations vehemently and the report consequently drew a blank. Three round table conferences in early thirties also failed to work out any satisfactory formula to resolve the question of power sharing between the two communities. The last attempt to build a political alliance between the Congress and the Muslim League in 1937 also came to a naught. The Congress after the elections refused to take two ministers nominated by the League in its cabinet on the grounds that it had failed to win majority of Muslim seats. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, who later became founder of Pakistan, was furious and vowed to teach the Congress a lesson. He propounded the two-nation theory and sowed the seed of partition of the country. Partition, justified or not, became the cause of animosity between the two communities in India. The upper caste Hindus never forgave Muslims for this.

It would also be wrong to blame all Muslims for the partition of the country. Indian Muslims were divided on the issue. The lower caste Muslims saw no benefit for them in creating a 'new homeland' as it would benefit only upper class Muslims. In fact a section of lower caste Muslims represented by the Mu`min Conference. They demonstrated against the two- nation theory propounded by Jinnah on 23rd March 1940 in Lahore. The Muslim `Ulama too vehemently opposed it and declared their support for composite nationalism of the Congress and also justified it on religious grounds. Thus it shows clearly that all Muslims were not unanimous on the question of two- nation theory and that the theory was not based on Islam but on the political needs of the Muslim elite. Maulana Husain Ahmad Madani, a prominent theologian and rector of the Darul `Ulum, Deoband, a premier Islamic seminary in India was on the forefront of the opponents of the two nation theory and he even wrote a book Muttahida Qawmiyat aur Islam (Composite Nationalism and Islam) to refute it. He also undertook a whirlwind tour of India to appeal to the Muslims not to be misled by Jinnah and his two-nation theory. This is clear proof of the fact that a section of Muslims strongly opposed creation of Pakistan. But it is strange irony of politics that the Indian Muslims as a whole are being held as guilty of dividing the country and paying the price for it.

(II)

Partition resulted in human massacre on both the sides of divide. More than a million people were killed and many more were displaced and cut off from their roots. The ruling classes in Pakistan mainly comprised the feudal lords, military and bureaucracy and never shared power with the masses. Its Islamic foundation also proved quite fragile and it broke into two in 1971 when the Bengali Muslims seceded from Pakistan and formed Bangla Desh. The Pakistani ruling elite led by Z.A.Bhutto refused to share power with the Bengali Muslims and tried to suppress their legitimate aspirations by sending army to former East Pakistan. Pakistan founded as it was, on the aspirations of Muslim power elite had often to resort to hate India campaign to divert attention of the Muslim masses from their real problems. Pakistan faces great challenges today in the form of ethnic and sectarian conflicts.

Partition as pointed out above, far from solving the communal problem in India, further aggravated it. The innocent Muslim masses in India continue to pay heavy price for creation of Pakistan. It created hatred in the minds of upper caste Hindus towards Muslims. These Hindus are even unable to distinguish between the interests of upper class Muslim elite who created Pakistan and the backward illiterate Muslim masses who were victims of partition. In many communal riots the fanatics raise the slogan Muslims jao Pakistan aur qabrastan (i.e. O Muslims go to Pakistan or to cemetery).

Thus partition neither solved the problems of Muslims in Pakistan nor those in India. It (i.e. partition), on the other hand, shattered the unity of Muslims in sub-continent who are now divided in three units - India, Pakistan and Bangla Desh. Partition had sought to create homeland for Indian Muslims. Far from it; Indian Muslims are not only divided in three units but today, of all these three countries, number of Muslims is highest in India for whom the Muslim homeland was meant. The Muslim masses in all these three countries are facing problems of acute poverty, unemployment and illiteracy. If at all anyone benefited from partition it was the elite Muslims who created so called Muslim 'homeland' in the name of Islam.

(III)

Indian Muslims faced problems of security and identity from the day one after India became independent. First partition riots made them terribly insecure. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims were killed during the partition riots in India as Hindus were killed in Pakistan. Thus independence brought a great calamity for both Hindus and Muslims in India. Moreover Indian Muslims were totally confused and did not know what to do. They lost even the sense of confidence. It was leaders of stature of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad who instilled sense of confidence and made them proud of their Islamic heritage in India. Maulana Azad's speech from the steps of Jama Masjid, Delhi acted as a balm and had a healing touch. However, Muslims had hard days to face after partition in India.

The Constitution was drafted and adopted on 26th January 1950 declaring India a re-public. The Constitution declared all citizens of India equal in every respect without any distinction of caste, creed or race. The Articles 25 to 30 of the Constitution also gave special religious and cultural rights to minorities. The Article 25 thus declares: "Subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion." This article even allows the Sikhs "…wearing and carrying of kirpans (a weapon) shall be deemed to be included in the profession of the Sikh religion."

Under cultural and educational rights of minorities articles 29 and 30 are very important. According to the Article 29 (1) Any section of the citizens residing in the territory of India or any part thereof having a distinct language, script or culture of its own shall have the right to conserve the same. (2) No citizen shall be denied admission into any educational institution maintained by the State or receiving State funds on grounds only of religion, race, caste, language or any of them."

The Article 30 is also of fundamental importance. This Article is entitled "Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions." It says: (1) "All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. (2) the State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions discriminate on the grounds that it is under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language."

Needless to say, these provisions of the Constitution are of fundamental importance for preserving the religious practices and identities of minority communities based on religion or language and culture. The Indian Muslims and other religious minorities like the Christians, Sikhs and neo-Buddhists highly value these provisions of the Constitution of India. For the Muslims in particular who constitute the largest religious minority these provisions are of special significance. The Muslims have resisted and preserved - this we will discuss in some more detail in the subsequent pages - their personal laws or shari'ah laws under the Article 25 which allows all persons to profess, practice and propagate their religion. However, there are differences among legal luminaries whether State can regulate or legislate in respect of the personal laws or not in view of the Article 25. Muslims of course maintain the State cannot.

The Article 29 and 30 are also of great importance for preservation of minority languages and cultures and the Hindu communalists often attack these provisions and want them to be done away with. But it requires two-third majority in the Parliament to change the Constitution and hence the Hindutva forces have not succeeded so far in tempering with these important provisions. However, there are violations of these provisions in practice and there are numerous grievances in this respect. But it is another story altogether.

While incorporation of these articles in Indian Constitution instilled a sense of confidence among Indian Muslims in post-independence period their loyalty to India remained suspect in the eyes of most of the people of majority community, particularly of north India. As pointed out before, it is sociologically and politically wrong to homogenise any religious community, but 'Hindus' and 'Muslims' became political categories since the British days in Indian political discourse as if they were monolithic bloc without any political, religious, linguistic and cultural differences. Commonality of religion, as the two-nation theory also assumed does not lead to commonality of politics, nor does it lead to commonality of culture. The north and central Indian Muslims who spoke Urdu were distinctly different from Muslims from south who speak different south Indian languages. They have their own political inclinations and compulsions.

The Muslims from south were indifferent to the question of Pakistan right from the beginning. They did not support the partition with same enthusiasm as the Urdu speaking Muslims of north India. Communalism and communal violence remained centred right from the British days in the north. Even in the post-partition period south was relatively free from communal violence until late eighties. It spread in south only during late eighties. Until then there were hardly any communal riots in the south except in Hyderabad which has been centre of Urdu speaking Muslims and was under the Nizam rule. However, after late eighties the communal situation deteriorated very fast in some parts of South, particularly in the state of Tamilnadu.

IV

Communal violence

In north India too there was relative communal peace during the fifties as the entire focus during this period was on linguistic re-organisation of states. In parts of India there were linguistic riots, particularly between Gujrat and Maharashtra on the question of inclusion of Bombay. However, an unending cycle of communal violence began from early sixties. The first major riot took place in Jabalpur in 1962 which shook the whole country. Jawaherlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India, was also thoroughly shaken. He did not expect communal violence on such massive scale as he thought the communal question was 'resolved' by partitioning the country on communal lines. His illusion was thus shattered. Communalism and communal violence was here to persist as partition had not changed the communal mind-set of some people. It had, on the other hand, aggravated it.

However, Nehru was committed to secular politics. Shaken by the events in Jabalpur, he formed national Integration Council after Jabalpur riots and Chinese invasion of 1962. However, unfortunately the Council remained only a paper organisation and could not become an active agent of promoting secular values and communal harmony. Most of the Congressmen were communal at heart and never had commitment to secularism as Nehru had. Many congress leaders were known sympathisers of Hindu communal outfits. They were opposed to Nehru's policies both internal as well as external i.e. his policy of non-alignment. The Jabalpur riots shook Indian Muslims' confidence in Congress as well as in secularism.

It was commitment to secularism that had inspired minorities to stand by the Indian National Congress and thousands of Indian Muslims had supported Indian freedom struggle because of Indian national Congress adopting secular philosophy. Indian secularism of course was far from being atheistic or antagonistic to religion like secularism in the Soviet Union. Indian secularism guaranteed religious freedom to all and it was this concept of religious freedom which made Indian Muslims feel Islam was safe in India. However, their confidence was shaken with every major communal riot. During Nehru period too several large communal riots took place. The situation was greatly aggravated after his death.

Nehru's death in 1964 left a great void but Indian democracy proved to be vibrant enough to overcome this crisis. Lal Bahadur Shashtri took over as Prime Minister but did not live long and died of heart attack after signing peace treaty in Tashkant after 1965 war between India and Pakistan. On his death Nehru's daughter Indira Gandhi became Prime Minister and to strengthen her position she tried to win over minorities by strengthening secular forces in the country. Thus she succeeded in winning over minorities who were feeling quite unsafe after series of communal riots in the country since Jabalpur riot.

However, Indira Gandhi had to face enormous challenges from her opponents both from within the Congress and outside it. The Congress bosses opposed to her split the Congress and Indira's faction became the ruling Congress. To make her position shaky all those ranged against her engineered a communal holocaust in 1969 in Ahmedabad in Gujrat (western India) where the Congress faction opposed to her was ruling. The Ahmedabad communal riots spread to other parts of Gujrat State and were much worse in intensity than the Jabalpur riots. The Jan Sangh which was the Hindu rightist and communal outfit was actively propagating against Muslims and doubting their loyalty to India in those days. It passed a resolution for 'Indianising' the Indian Muslims as if they were not Indian enough. Its president in those days was Balraj Madhok who was known to be extremist in his views. The print media played up the resolution and some papers like The Times of India even editorially supported the resolution.

The Indian Muslims were feeling terribly insecure and felt their very existence was in danger. And it was in this suffocating atmosphere that Ahmedabad holocaust occurred in which more than thousand Muslims were killed in Ahmedabad City alone. And the Ahmedabad riots were followed with equally ferocious communal riot in Bhivandi in 1970. Another communal outfit called Shiv Sena came into existence in Maharashtra in late sixties and some senior Congressmen of Bombay were supposedly behind it. These Congressmen who were nursing grievances against Nehruvian leftward policies lent their discrete support to a Marathi demagogue Bal Thackaray. Mr. Thackaray aroused both strong regional as well as communal feelings among the Maharashtrian youth. Bal Thackaray was also staunch enemy of communists and it was at his instance that a communist activist Krishna Desai was murdered by Shiv Sainiks.

It was Shiv Sena which was behind the Bhivandi riots of 1970. Bhivandi is around 40 miles from Bombay city and is centre of power looms mostly owned by Muslims. It has Muslim majority. It is reported that more than 400 persons, mostly Muslims, were killed in these riots. What was worse which made Muslims more insecure was the biased role of the police in these riots. In all these riots there were instances of unabashed partiality of the police towards the Hindu communal elements. However, it must be said that only a section of Hindus took communal positions and showed anti-Muslim bias, not all Hindus. Many Hindus, perhaps a great majority, either remained neutral or stood on the side of Muslims or fought communal forces in their own community. Shiv Sena in Maharashtra was backed either by communal elements or by those Congressmen who were nursing grievances against Indira Gandhi.

The period between 1970 and 1977 was comparatively peaceful and there were no major communal riots during this period for various reasons. It was during this period that the liberation movement in erstwhile East Pakistan started and Bangla Desh seceded from Pakistan through active intervention of Indian army. The attention of whole nation was in that direction. Mrs. Gnadhi's stature was boosted tremendously and she emerged as a great heroin of Indian politics. However, this proved to be quite short-lived and soon opposition gathered momentum. Jayprakash Narayan, a socialist leader of great stature in Indian politics, launched an anti-corruption movement against her and her prestige went down considerably. She also lost an election petition in Allahabad High Court and was unseated. She declared emergency in 1975 and large number of opposition leaders were arrested including Jayprakash Narayan. Most of the Jansangh and RSS leaders were also rounded up and there was complete political vaccum. Thus there was no one left to provoke communal violence.

However, emergency was lifted in 1977 and in the ensuing elections Mrs.Gandhi and her party lost heavily and the newly formed Janata Party formed the government of which the Jansangh was a constituent. The Jansangh ostensibly renounced its communal philosophy and pledged at Gandhiji's Samadhi (where his funeral ashes lay buried) to be secular and votary of Gandhian socialism. The north Indian Muslims who had greatly suffered during cleansing programmes in emergency overwhelmingly voted for the Janata Party knowing fully well that the Jansangh was part of it. It was the first and last time that the Muslims voted for the Jansngh in sheer desperation. They expected the Jansangh to reciprocate this gesture towards Muslims but were soon disillusioned. A series of communal riots followed from 1978 onwards. Major riots took place in Jamshedpur, Aligarh and Varanasi in north India. Many innocent lives were lost.

The RSS which provides ideological direction to Hindu communal forces was quite unhappy at the Jansangh renouncing communalism and adopting secularism which is perceived to be anti-Hindu. The Jansangh members were forced, by their RSS mentors, not to renounce their RSS membership. All the top leaders of the then Jan Sangh were also members of RSS and the socialist leaders like Raj Narain in the Janata Party raised this issue - known as the duel membership issue - and asked the Jansangh members in the Janata Party to resign their RSS membership. The RSS made it plain to their members not to resign and planned several communal riots in Aligarh, Varanasi, Jamshedpur etc. to display its strength. The Janata party Government fell apart on this question in 1979 and replaced by the government led by Charan Singh which is also lasted for few months. In the ensuing elections in 1980 Mrs. Gandhi came back to power though with less popular vote.

The Janasangh after break up of the Janata Party took a new avatar now calling itself Bhartiya Janata Party and adopted moderate posture still claiming to be committed to 'secularism' and Gandhian socialism. To symbolise its commitment to these ideals, a moderate leader like Atal Bihari Vajpayee was made its president. But this strategy soon came to naught as Mrs. Indira Gandhi, in order to compensate for her loss of Muslim votes, began to mobilise Hindu votes adopting Hindu communal postures from behind the scene. This upset BJP's apple cart and it lost its own ground. They faced threat from Mrs. Gandhi and lost heavily in the general elections of 1984 when they got only 2 seats in Parliament. The BJP was thus forced to rethink its strategy to keep its political base intact and seen to widen it.

Thus it began to adopt its earlier aggressive communal postures once again. Vajpayee was replaced by Shri L.K.Advani as president of BJP who is known for his strong Hindutva proclivity. In order to compete with the Congress soft communalism the BJP adopted hard Hindu communalism from the early eighties and even began to question the Nehruvian concept of secularism. Now a debate took place publicly whether Nehruvian secularism was at all relevant to India, it being a western notion. The BJP, under the leadership of Mr.Advani even dubbed Nehruvian secularism as nothing more than a policy of 'appeasement of Muslims'. The only example the BJP could give of appeasement of Muslims was that of Muslim personal law under which a Muslim man could marry four wives whereas the Hindus cannot. They can marry only one wife. It greatly appealed to the Hindu middle class.

The BJP also aggressively propagated that the Muslims do not practise family planning and that their population is increasing much faster than that of Hindus and that the Muslim population will take over the Hindu population by 2050 and India will become part of Pakistan. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad, a member of the Sangh Parivar (The RSS, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal apart from the BJP constituted what is called the Sangh Parivar or the Saffron family) took much more militantly communal posture on this issue. It distributed pamphlets throughout out India showing a Hindu couple with two children and a Muslim man with four wives and host of children with the legend that 'we five our twenty five'. Also, after conversion of a few Dalit families to Islam in Meenakshipuram (Tamilnadu) in 1981, the VHP launched an aggressive movement against conversion to Islam as currently it is attacking Christians for conversion.

All this greatly communalised the situation in the country and communal riots increased both in numbers and intensity. The Muslims naturally began to feel highly insecure and thought their Islamic identity is in danger. Secularism, needless to say, has been a great source of strength for minorities in India, particularly the Muslims. If secularism comes under attack, the minorities feel quite insecure. The militant attack by the Saffrom family on Nehruvian secularism and the VHP campaign against conversion and myth of multiplying population of the Muslims not only weakened Indian secularism but made the Muslims feel politically suffocated. It was under these circumstances that the Supreme Court delivered what has come to be known as The Shah Bano judgement regarding the maintenance of a Muslim divorcee.

The judgement upheld Shah Bano's contention under the secular law that she was entitled to maintenance for life and not for only the iddah (waiting period before re-marriage after the divorce which is three months) period. This judgement delivered in 1985 was thought to be another attack on Islam and Muslim identity in India. The Muslim leadership across the political parties and sectarian divide unitedly opposed the Supreme Court judgement and launched an aggressive movement to reverse it. This added to already aggravated communal situation and went a long way to further intensify hostility between two communities.

It was under these circumstances that the BJP launched a new agitation: to demolish the Babri Masjid and construct a Ramjanambhoomi temple in its place. The BJP maintained - though without much justification - that Babar, the Moghul ruler, after whom the mosque in Ayodhya was named, had demolished the Ramjanambhoomi temple and constructed the mosque. So now that the Hindus were in political command, had right to demolish the mosque and reconstruct the temple dedicated to Ram and take historical revenge. This too greatly appealed to the Hindu middle classes and the BJP, which had a narrow political base among the upper caste Hindus earlier began to expand it among the middle and even backward caste Hindus in the name of Ram.

The Babri Masjid-Ramjanambhoomi agitation was not only historically unjustified, it launched a frontal attack on Indian secularism. The Muslims began to fear that it is beginning of the end of secularism in India and that the Sangh Parivar would demolish all historical mosques one after the other and that Constitutional guarantees are quite hollow. The Sangh Parivar had prepared a list of 300 such mosques and this was enough to frighten Muslims. Muslims were furthermore perturbed by the fact that the ruling Congress Government headed by Rajiv Gandhi could do nothing to stop the tide of Hindu communalism. Not only this Rajiv opened the lock over the Babri Masjid and allowed the Hindus to worship Lord Ram's idol planted there in 1948 by some RSS enthusiasts. This aggressive Ramjanambhoomi movement resulted in a series of communal riots in various parts of India in which hundreds of innocent lives were lost most of whom were Muslims. The 1987 riots in Meerut and 1989 riots in Bhagalpur sent shock waves throughout India making Muslims feel terribly insecure.

The Babri Masjid was also demolished by karsevaks (voluntary workers) of the Sangh Parivar on 6th December 1992 when Narsimha Rao was the Congress Prime Minister of India. Many secular Hindus also felt that it was a terrible tragedy and it was not only destruction of a mosque through political hooliganism but also a terrible blow to Indian secularism. The demolition of Babri Masjid was followed by riots in Bombay, Surat, Ahmedabad, Kanpur, Delhi and several other places. Communal holocaust, as if, swept throughout the country. The Bombay riots of 1992 and 1993 were mainly organised by Shiv Sena, a regional fascistic and communal outfit led by Bal Thackaray who cried for the blood of Muslims. The Bombay riots in particular had international repercussions. They tarnished the secular image of India.

V

Post-Babri situation

Though as a result of Ramjanambhoomi movement the BJP gained tremendous political ground and ultimately succeeded in capturing political power as a major coalition partner, the communal situation eased in the post-Babri demolition period. The decade of eighties was the most dangerous communal decade in post-independence period. It witnessed the most aggressive form of communalism after the partition of the country. The Sangh Parivar went all out during this period to expand its political base by misusing religious and communal issues one after the other.

However, once it came to power at the Centre at the head of coalition it began to downplay communal issues. It wanted to maintain law and order situation under control and also wanted to give a message to Muslims that they will be safe only if the BJP is in power. It even promised to Muslims a 'riot-free' India in its election manifesto of 1999 if it comes to power. Some politicians who made an alliance with the BJP even argued that to ensure riot-free India one should keep BJP in power and hence these otherwise secular parties legitimsed their alliance with it.

However, it would be knave to think that BJP can become 'secular' if it is voted to power. BJP had been provoking communal hatred in order to get Hindu votes but as a ruling party obviously it cannot risk provoking communal violence. It will tarnish its political image. As a ruling party it has to ensure communal peace. But communal peace or absence of communal violence should not be mistaken for communal harmony. To spread communal feelings is the very ideological basis of Sangh Parivar. If communalism and communal ideology remains alive communal violence can be incited whenever needed. The BJP itself is not indulging in communal propaganda. The other members of the Saffron family - RSS, the Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Bajrang Dal - fill this void. Of late the Christian community has come under attack for conversions.

The BJP for the time being is going soft on Muslims. It is even following Mrs.Gandhi's policies of early eighties in reverse. Mrs.Indira Gandhi who traditionally depended on minority votes tried to switch over to the Hindu votes to compensate for its loss of popularity among the Muslims. The BJP who is witnessing loss of popularity among the Hindus is now appealing to Muslims to come closer to it and repose confidence in it. The wooing of Muslims by the BJP thus can be compared with the wooing of Hindus by Mrs.Gandhi. These are political games which the politicians play to come to power. People of this or that community are used as vote-banks and object of rather than subject of politics.

Democracy should be an effective tool for empowerment of people but it is rather used for empowering politicians at the cost of the people. The Congress always used Muslims as vote-bank. The Congress in its long rule hardly did anything to solve acute problems of Muslims. Muslims in India are very poor and backward. Their main problems are economic and educational. But the ruling parties did nothing substantial in these fields. Only promises were made. The literacy rate among Muslims tends to be around 35% and among Muslim women it is even more depressing - not more than 18 per cent. Their share in political power and in government jobs is also very dismal. Though the Muslim population is more than 12 per cent (according to 1991 census) and may touch 15% level in 2001 census, number of M.P.s (members of parliament) is usually around 5 per cent. In state assemblies also it is no different.

Even at the lowest level of government jobs - class three and class four jobs their share does not go beyond 6 to 7% and at the level of higher administrative positions like the IAS it is no more than 3-4 per cent. It is true it is difficult to find qualified Muslims for various jobs and the Muslim leaders also have done near to nothing to disseminate education among the Muslim masses. But Union and State Governments have also done nothing to redeem the situation. They make all promises at the time of elections but except repeating these promises during next elections hardly anything happens. The Muslim grievances are quite justified. They hardly have any share in power as the largest minority in India. The share, if any, is woefully inadequate.

Conclusion

Thousands of Muslims not only participated in freedom struggle in India and made great sacrifices but also vigorously opposed creation of Pakistan. They dreamt of secular India hoping for creation of just society where they will be not only able to follow their religion but also share power on equitable basis. However, things did not go that way. Though Jawaharlal Nehru was committed to justice to minorities in independent India other Congress leaders were not. The majority in the Congress did not share Nehru's commitment. Also, creation of Pakistan marred to an extent, the future of Muslims in India. It created powerful prejudices in the minds of Hindus and Indian Muslims were seen as more loyal to Pakistan than to India and they generalised few such instances to reinforce the conclusion which they already had drawn.

The Muslims also did not draw up proper strategy for their own advancement in secular India. Their leaders, as pointed out before, cared more for religion and identity-related problems than the education and economic progress-related ones. These leaders always looked to the past then to future. They negotiated deals with political parties - mainly the Congress - to preserve their past heritage than to build future for the Muslim masses. Now it is dawning on Muslims that apart from preserving their Islamic identity they also have to carve out their niche in democratic secular India. Though still the emphasis is on building madrasas but more and more secular educational institutions are also coming up. More and more Muslims are realising that girl education is also very important for their progress. A new middle class is also slowly coming into existence which is increasingly championing the cause of modern education. Pressures are also building up from below for certain necessary changes in the status of women, particularly certain necessary changes in the shari'ah law as it operates in India.

Though still there is mass poverty among the Muslims, particularly among the lower caste Muslims, they have turned the corner and many of them are striving for upward mobility. However, they have far to go and many powerful obstacles to overcome. It is certainly convoluted way to forge ahead. Even the BJP has discovered that anti-Muslim tirade cannot yield more results and is negotiating a new political space which is likely to have some place for Muslims though it is not easy for it to do this. It's ideological mentor RSS may not allow it to do this. Much will depend on the response of its Hindu voters to this new orientation of the moderate section of the BJP leadership. It will be tested in coming elections particularly in U.P.

Whether the BJP forges ahead with its new Muslim policy or not the Muslims have to sink or swim in the Indian political ocean, and from all available signs it appears Muslim masses have decided to swim even if the ocean is choppy. If right now the future of Muslims is not bright, it is not dismal either. Given a little more wisdom and pragmatic approach Muslims can succeed in shaping their future in democratic India even if its secularism is undulating.

Islam, morality and state

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Is Islam a political ideology or moral and spiritual guide? Answer depends on ones point of view. It has become commonplace that one cannot separate religion from politics in Islam. And hence one often talks of Islamic state. However, this approach does not bear Qur’anic scrutiny. If one studies the Qur’an carefully, one does not find any mention of Islamic state in the holy Book. It was sheer coincidence that a state emerged in Islamic society almost during lifetime of the Holy Prophet.

No religion comes in the world to establish state. It appears to remove moral corruption and provide spiritual guide. If a state had been necessary to establish a religion, Allah would have made it a universal rule and all prophets would have established one. How could then Islam be an exception? We do not find any prophet in the Qur’an establishing a state. Only two prophets Daud and Suleman (peace be upon them) are mentioned as kings and rulers.

In fact except these two all prophets mentioned in the Qur’an come from among the people and have been of humble origin. They all faced persecution at the hands of powerful vested interests i.e. rulers like Nimrod or Pharaoh or leaders of the community who found prophets’ moral and spiritual teachings as danger to their interests. All these prophets were severely persecuted by these vested interests, Nimrod persecuted Ibrahim (A.S.), Pharaoh persecuted Musa (A.S.) and Salih by his community leaders and Mohammad (PBUH) by the powerful and rich tribal leaders of Mecca.

Throughout Meccan period Muslims faced severe persecution and the Prophet (PBUH) bore insults, humiliations and physical persecution with exemplary patience and fortitude. He did not even curse his enemies.

Also, a religion can never be established by state authority, it establishes itself through its own moral and spiritual force. People believe in religion not because it is patronized by a state but because its moral teachings appeal to the people. Those who believe in necessity of establishing Islamic state indirectly think that Islam can be sustained only through state authority and not by its own moral and spiritual appeal.

Some people even argue that if there is no state how shari’ah law can be enforced? For them shari’ah law to be enforced, it needs a state authority. There is obvious flaw in the argument. There are millions of Muslims living as minority in countries like India, U.K., USA, France, Germany, Canada, Switzerland and so on. How about them then? Are they not Muslims? Do they not follow shari’ah laws? In fact more Muslims today live in minority than in Islamic states.

Qur’an strongly believes in freedom of conscience and real foundation of religion rests on this doctrine of freedom of conscience. A person can be truly moral only if his heart and soul accept moral doctrines. Coercive power can never make a person moral in true sense of the word. Coercion leads to hatred of the authority rather than respect for law. Respect for law can be inculcated only through awareness and moral education. Thus it is not a sound argument that one cannot enforce shari’ah without there being a state agency. In fact state is always seen as coercive agency. Also, there is absolutely no guarantee that state actors will not be corrupt and will be always morally sound. Even history of Islamic state in last 1400 years is nothing to be proud of.

Whenever a powerful establishment like a state establishment, based on power and wealth comes into existence, there is struggle to control it and this obviously leads to struggle between various aspirants, resorting to fair and foul means. Even those who were close companion of the Prophet and morally upright and worthy of emulation, struggled among themselves to control state machinery. Even bloodshed could not be avoided and Muslims plunged into civil war and more than 70,000 lives were lost.

This was during the period of pious Caliphs. During Umayyad and Abbasid periods things were far worse. State machinery was controlled by ambitious rulers who used all foul means conceivable to eliminate their competitors. Most unscrupulous means were employed to obtain or retain power. During the Umayyad period only Umat bin Abdul Aziz was morally upright and tried to follow Islamic principles but then he was poisoned by the vested interests.

Yusuf bin Hajjaj was a great tyrant who controlled Iraq during the Umayyad period. He killed about one hundred thousand Muslims and sent to jail half that number. The Umayyad’s were overthrown by Abbasids resulting in great bloodshed. So much blood was shed that one who led Abbasid insurrection came to be known as Saffah i.e. one who shed lot of blood. The Abbasids did not spare even newborn Umayyad babies.

The rightly guided Caliphs could not last for more than thirty years and three out of these rightly guided caliphs were assassinated. Thus one can easily say that even pious caliphs found it very challenging to establish a just state which really could rule according to the moral and spiritual guidance of the Qur’an. And even if the ruler at the top is just and scrupulous, there is no guarantee that people around him will not be tempted to become corrupt in order to accumulate wealth and power.

In fact the whole history of so called; Islamic State’ is history of coercion and bloodshed. State never succeeded in establishing morality and spirituality in the society. Morality and spirituality can be imbibed only through inner transformation which is possible only through inner conviction. Thus it is conviction which is more fundamental in moral and spiritual matters than coercion. State always represents coercion, not conviction.

II

The Qur’an not only emphasizes freedom of conscience in matters of deen but also exhorts the Prophet (PBUH) not to act as musaytar (88:22). Thus even the Prophet (PBUH) is only a moral guide, not a warder or supervisor. The Prophet also is not required to perform state function, let alone establish a state to impose deen on anyone. Thus not only that Qur’an does not refer to any concept of state, it does not recommend to Prophet to become a musaytar.

It should also be noted that Islam has spread in the world not due to any state machinery, but due to those who led pious and exemplary life. In fact at times the state became an impediment in spreading Islam. During the Umayyad period when some enthusiastic preachers converted large number of people to Islam in Iran it affected the state income as jizya amount was reduced. The Umayyad Caliph thus wrote to the Governor of the province to restrain the preachers from conversions as state treasury was being adversely affected.

The Qur’an advises the people calling others to the way of Allah to do so through good words and wisdom (16:125). Thus it is certainly not for the state to organize da’wah. Its only function is to legislate in the interests of people and maintain law and order and provide impartial machinery for justice.

Now some can and do argue that state can only impose shari’ah law and cannot legislate as shari’ah law is itself a divine law. It can only enforce what is already given as divine law. Thus some Islamic states follow only shari’ah law and do not legislate. But even Islamic jurists agree that it is only rules of ‘ibadat (rules pertaining to arena of worship like prayers, zakat, haj, etc.) that cannot be changed. But those pertaining to mu’amalat i.e. interpersonal matters need changes from time to time. The law cannot remain stagnant in matters of mu’malat.

While principles and values cannot change, law based on these principles and values should keep pace with changing times. A law, for example, thought to be just at one period of time, becomes unjust or oppressive, at another period of time. Thus justice is more important than the law based on it. Many laws which Islamic jurists had thought to be quite just in respect of women, are being thought to be unjust by women today and are demanding changes in these laws. The case of hudud laws in Pakistan is the best example for this.

Today Islam is divided into several sects (and this division is justified by our ‘ulama on the basis of a hadith ascribed to the Prophet that Islam will be divided into 72 sects and only one sect will be naji i.e. on right path) and every Muslim country has several of such sects in its geographical boundaries. Each sect has its own laws of shari’ah. Then the question arises which shari’ah law an Islamic state will enforce? If the state follows the laws of one particular sect, other sects will be coerced into following that law. Thus it will violate the principle of freedom of conscience.

Also, any law imposed coercively will not bring about real moral transformation which is the main purpose of Islamic shari’ah. Only in case of crime state should be permitted to use coercion. Thus if someone steals, or rapes, one has to be punished and or such crimes need to be coercively prevented.

In all other matters which pertain to moral and spiritual upliftment, coercion cannot be permitted. Islamic states are coercively imposing even dress code, particularly where women are concerned. And this dress code is often cultural than religious. Such imposition has no meaning because these women, given a chance, will wear mini-skirts and one finds Saudi and Iranian women wearing even outrageous dresses in other countries. This defeats the very purpose of shari’ah law. Shari’ah is not meant for coercion, but for moral transformation.

If you set up an Islamic state, it is ‘ulama who will control the state machinery in the name of imposing shari’ah law. The elected rulers, will have to fear them and ‘ulama, who are not accountable to the people, often rule by proxy. Thus technically an Islamic state cannot become truly democratic. In Iran, any law passed by the parliament cannot become law unless approved and signed by the supreme faqih or by a council of fuqaha’ who will examine it from the point of view of shari’ah as compiled in early Islamic period.

The ‘ulama do not even allow re-thinking shari’ah provisions in the light of new developments as their interests can be protected only if shari’ah remains immutable. They do not allow even to use doctrine of ijtihad (creative interpretation) to make shari’ah law more relevant to people’s lives. They go on insisting on laws no more relevant to modern age. They even negate the true spirit of the Qur’an which is the most dynamic book for guidance in any age.

The Qur’an stresses certain values as most fundamental like equality, truth, justice, compassion, benevolence (ihsan), freedom of conscience and wisdom. All shari’ah laws should be based on these values and as pointed out above, these values are more important than any law, unless the law embodies these values. Our shari’ah laws were undoubtedly quite progressive when they were formulated by the great jurists but in contemporary world they need to be revisited.

Our ulama who control state power do not allow shariah law to be revisited and that is why all Muslim countries which have proclaimed themselves to be Islamic states are stagnating in the field of modern knowledge. There is not a single Muslim country with Islamic state which can boast of modern laboratories for study of nuclear or atomic physics or other institutions of higher learning. Qur’an so much stresses learning and even says only scientists (‘ulama, not in traditional sense) alone can understand this universe and praise its creator (see verses 3:190 and 35:28).

Modern state cannot confine itself to traditional knowledge but has to actively encourage modern knowledge and has to encourage excellence in all the fields of modern science. No country can play leading role today without achieving such excellence in fields of modern natural and social sciences. An Islamic state is constrained by traditional sciences and whole stress in such states is on religious learning rather than on modern science and technology.

Even true religion can flourish only if there is freedom to choose and state does not dictate anything to its citizens. More a person is free more he would be able to develop his religious and spiritual thoughts. If a state is encumbered by a particular sect or school of thought, it will not grant freedom to other schools of thought. This is the dilemma of all ideological states. Only narrow interpretation of the ideology on which a state is based, is permitted and it is official interpretation which prevails. This totally curbs freedom to develop the thought.

Freedom of conscience is most fundamental for true spiritual enterprise and for moral excellence. The Qur’an also requires all believers to choose freely and to sue power of reasoning and intellect to reflect and make moral choice. When angles argued with Allah that we always pray to thee and thou art creating a human person who will defy thee. Allah replied you do not know what I know and created human being(2:30).

What mainly distinguished human beings from angles was freedom of choice. Human beings can choose between good and evil whereas angels have no such freedom. They have to follow good without any option as they have been created as such. Human beings, on the other hand, are free to choose and yet if they choose to be good it makes them superior. Thus it is freedom to choose which made them superior to angels and so angels were asked to bow before Adam.

Any ideological state does not allow such freedom of choice. It is only a modern democratic state unconstrained and unencumbered by any religious dogmas, which can allow people to choose and be morally superior. Human spirit demands freedom and only a free human actor can be held responsible for his/her conduct. One cannot be free moral agent in any ideological state.

III

In fact Islamic state is not a deeni concept but a historical construct. If one want to understand how the concept of Islamic state evolved, one has to look to history not to religious principles. I have already thrown light on the Qur’anic values and hence Qur’an aims at a society based on these values, and not a state.

When the Qur’an was being revealed in Mecca and also for first few years in Madina, there was nothing like any state there. Moreover in Mecca the Prophet (PBUH) and his followers were in small minority struggling to form a community (ummah), rather than a state. In Madina situation changed somewhat in later years when the Prophet emerged as a supreme authority, not only in religious but also a secular matters. It was historical, not religious need.

The whole emphasis of Qur’an even in Medinese period, is on prophethood, not on kingship or being ruler. Throughout Medinese revelations also Muhammad (PBUH) is referred to as prophet. Thus his pre-eminent position was that of a prophet. He never raised any army or police or did not impose any taxes. Whenever Madina was attacked people were persuaded to volunteer themselves and hence the emphasis on martyrdom (shahadat). Those who fought with the prophet were not paid anything; on the contrary they had to contribute weapons, camels and horses and other provisions. Thus it was a purely voluntary force until the Prophet was living. No state structure of any kind was evolved during the Prophet’s life time. Zakat was also a religious obligation rather than a state tax. There were no other employees of any kind.

It was only after the Prophet’s death that need was felt for some kind of state of primitive kind. It is also important to note that the Prophet(PBUH), unlike Christ (Isa), was not born in a society where there was ruler. Christ was born under Roman rule. Thus he remained only a prophet. Similarly Ibrahim and Moses were also born under rulers like Nimrod and Pharoah and hence remained only as prophets.

But the Prophet of Islam was born in a society where there was no ruler. It was primarily a tribal society and hence once a religious community came into existence, it needed ruling authority to maintain law and order. And all four pious caliphs ruled through mutual consultation. It was loosely structured state authority to maintain law and order in the society and this need increased as non-Arab foreign lands were conquered.

Many non-Arabs came under Muslim authority who were neither converted to Islam nor did they accept Islamic morals. Thus with these conquests a proper state authority became a must and Umar, the second Caliph during whose regime foreign lands began to be conquered extensively, a paid army and police force became necessary. It was now hardly possible to work with voluntary services. Thus Umar set up an army register (he copied it from Iran) and also shurtat (police) and even market inspectors.

The four rightly guided Caliphs tried their best to keep character of state as non-coercive as possible but with seizure of power by Mu’awiyah, the state really became more and more coercive apparatus mainly concerned with political power than creating a moral value-based society. The Prophet’s (PBUH) whole efforts were directed at creating a value-based society rather than controlling political power. The four Caliphs tried to maintain this tradition but Umayyads were mainly concerned with political power, not with quality of the society.

The Islamic world thereafter never saw a period where main concern was creating a moral society but to capture and retain power for once own dynasty. Such states cannot be characterized as ‘Islamic State’ by any stretch of imagination. In modern times and in globalised world societies are becoming more and more multi-religious and hence best form of state could be one which is not concerned with this or that religious dogmas but fundamental values and people’s welfare.

No state can be run today with bias towards one particular religion or sect of religion. Such a state run by imperfect human beings cannot be expected to be impartial towards other religious communities or other sects of same religious community. Even in Muslim-majority countries a state, not based on any one religious dogmas, can be better administered. What is desirable is not Islamic state but a society based on Qur’anic values.

Kanpur Riots 2001: A wake up call

KANPUR RIOTS - A WAKE UP CALL
May 1-15, 2001
by Asghar Ali Engineer

Communal riots in Kanpur should not be taken lightly. These riots, in fact, should be treated as a wake up call by all sincerely committed secularists. After the Coimbatore riots in 1998 the Kanpur riots are major riots in the post-Babri demolition period. There is no doubt that after demolition of Babri Masjid and consequent Bombay riots, communal violence had gone down considerably for various reasons not to be analysed here. Babri Masjid demolition and Bombay riots were, as if, a watershed for communal violence in India. Thus the Coimbatore riots and Kanpur riots, it seems, are once again changing the contours of communal violence.

As we have pointed out earlier too the decade of eighties was the worst decade from the perspective of communal violence. Several major riots from Moradabad in 1980 to the Bombay-Surat riots in 1992-93 took place during this decade. These riots had shaken the nation. The lull in between made people complacent again. The decade of eighties became so much violence - prone for mainly politics of communalism adopted aggressively by the BJP initially in response to Mrs. Indira Gandhi's limited communal manoeuvres and later to discredit the Congress politics among the middle and upper class Hindus in which it succeeded considerably.

It was during this decade that the BJP began to describe the Nehruvian secularism as pseudo-secularism (though it avowed to pursue the same kind of secularism after coming to power in March 1998) and also accused the Congress of pursuing the policy of appeasement towards minorities (the BJP of course continued same policies towards minorities). This aggressive propaganda greatly appealed to the upper caste upper class Hindus and they became BJP's votaries in ever-greater numbers.

It was as a result of all this that communal violence erupted in several communally sensitive towns, particularly in U.P. and Bihar. The Ramjanambhoomi issue also incited communal passions as never before. The BJP while described itself as a party with a difference, it resorted to all such communal controversies most unscrupulously for its quest for power.

After coming to power at the Centre at the head of a coalition in 1997 it began to pursue apparently same secular policies as those of the Congress but - and it is important to note - with a difference. Though apparently there were no major planned communal riots as BJP in power had no use for communal violence, it continued to pursue its hidden communal agenda quite aggressively. It handed over very sensitive ministries like the Human Resources ministry and Home Ministry to those very close to the RSS so as to pursue this hidden agenda. All educational and research bodies since then have been stuffed with die hard RSS and VHP elements who are openly communalising and saffronising the educational institutions.

The minorities have been living under sense of insecurity due to such openly pursued communal policies. This has to manifest itself in some or the other communal incidents specially where the BJP is in power. Kanpur, being communal flash pot, erupted this time again. Kanpur has a long history of communal violence beginning right from early twentieth century. It had witnessed major communal riots in the British period too, particularly in 1914 and 1932. It witnessed major rioting after demolition of Babri Masjid too.

Kanpur has large population of Brahmins on one hand and of Muslims, on the other. It is also one of the main centres of criminal gangs in U.P. It was in this city that Kalabachcha, a known criminal allied to the BJP operated. He was quite active in various communal riots in Kanpur including in communal riots following demolition of Babri Masjid.

Kanpur is an industrial area and Muslims are mainly engaged in leather industry and most of them are poor and illiterate and these days facing great deal of unemployment due to industrial recession. All this makes a fatal combination as far as communal violence is concerned. Muslims being poor and backward are under influence of orthodoxy. Those who are poor and backward are also easily excitable on sensitive religious issues as they hardly have any stake in life. They have nothing to lose except their lives. This factor also makes Kanpur communally extra sensitive.

The demolition of Buddha Statues in Afghanistan became a flashpoint as far as the Kanpur and other riots in Maharshtra like Aurangabad, Pune and other places are concerned. Though all Indian Muslims unanimously had condemned breaking of these statues in Bamiyan the fanatics of VHP and Bajrang Dal burnt the copies of Holy Qur'an in Delhi and later in Amritsar and Patiala though they denied having done so when Muslims took strong objection. But there are eyewitnesses to the incident and a photograph setting fire to the Islamic scripture was put on Internet from which it was down loaded by some Muslims. What is surprising is that while the Buddhists protested against demolition of Buddha statues with a sense of dignity the Hindu fanatics of VHP and Bajrang Dal resorted to burning of the Holy Qur'an. It is Buddhists who should have been more outraged than Hindus.

SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India) which was founded after Emergency in 1977 to fill the void created by the arrests of Jamat-e-Islami leaders is an organisation of young fanatical students. It admits students of 15 to 30 years of age. These students are quite closed minded, fanatical in their approach and very easily excitable. Naturally being very young they have no vision or fear of consequences.

The Kanpur riots as well as riots in Maharashtra began after the SIMI members organised demonstrations against the burning of the Qur'an. The administration in Kanpur alleged that the members of SIMI were carrying sophisticated weapons which leaders of SIMI deny. An additional city magistrate accompanying the protest procession was shot dead. It is alleged by the police authorities that the shots were fired from inside a mosque and that SIMI has an ISI connection and that these sophisticated weapons like the assault rifle from which the shots were allegedly fired were supplied by the ISI of Pakistan.

It is, however, very difficult to verify these allegations. Only a full-fledged judicial inquiry can probably establish the truth. The truth perhaps may never be known as in case of many similar riots earlier. It has also been alleged that the riots were further aggravated due to in fight within the police force, particularly between the I.G Police and his deputy who were not even on talking terms. The I.G. Police was playing badminton when the riots erupted and he ignored the pleas to reach the trouble spot on time. Meanwhile the riots erupted.

The PAC which is notorious for its anti-Muslim bias and trigger-happy role was called to control the situation. The result was known. It began to fire on Muslims indiscriminately which ultimately resulted in loss of 12 lives and many more injured. The PAC is invariably called to control riots in U.P. despite its well- known anti-Muslim bias. This force had killed several young Muslims in Hashimpura and Malyana in Meerut riots in 1987. No action was taken by any Government including the Mulayamsingh Yadav Government for these killings until today. Nor it will ever be taken. The Rajnath Singh Government in U.P. refused the call army and instead deployed PAC and PAC killed many innocent people including bystanders by aiming at them deliberately.

The SIMI leaders point out that they are not responsible for these riots and that they were totally unarmed. It is the police, which ignited the situation by firing on unarmed protesters. There may be partial truth in this. But the SIMI cannot disown the responsibility for the riots. It should have known the consequences of leading such protest processions. In fact in view of communally sensitive situation, there was no need for such demonstrations. They could have achieved same objective by submitting a memorandum peacefully to the collector or they could have met the Governor of the State. The young highly excitable students, however, preferred street demonstration triggering events beyond their control.

One does not expect the SIMI leaders to have wisdom but the senior Muslim leaders should know better and do every thing possible to restrain these excitable youngsters in time and if they do not listen to them they should publicly disown their unwise action. If few fanatics burn the Holy Scripture of Islam it is not going to reduce its greatness any way. These fanatics burnt the Qur'an to provoke Muslims and by getting provoked they played into their hands.

The secular forces should treat the recent bout of communal violence in Kanpur in U.P. and in Aurangabad and Pune in Maharashtra (though in Maharashtra violence was ns serious as in Kanpur) as a wake up call and be pro-active rather than reactive in fighting re-emerging communal monster. The expose of corruption by Tehelka tapes will also, in all probability, give further spur to it. The desperate politicians may resort to communal violence to divert the attention. And even if it does not happen, the communal situation in the country should not be treated lightly in any case. Communal poison is actively being spread by some members of the Sangh Parivar making the whole country communally combustible. It is not merely an alarmist view. All those who are interested in strengthening the unity and integrity of the country should actively work for promotion of secular values and to meet communal challenge.

Kashmiri youth and prospects of peace

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Our Centre conducted a five-day peace and conflict resolution workshop in Srinagar from 21st to 25th August 2006. The Centre has been organising these workshops in communally sensitive areas for last few years. Kashmir turmoil of course has nothing to do with communal trouble. But is certainly afflicted with ethnic turmoil and peace is an urgent need there. So we decided to organise a workshop on peace and conflict resolution with a local NGO Eves Welfare Society.

I must confess it was the toughest workshop I have ever conducted. The participants in the workshop were post-gradate students of Kashmir university from departments of Mass Communication, Human Rights and Political Science, some 72 in number. I had to face youth completely alienated from mainstream India. Many of them even maintained they are not part of India and that they are fighting for their independence. Some even said Indian army is an occupation army and but for this occupation by India Jammu and Kashmir would have been a peaceful state.

I had to battle through every position the students took and try to convince them that though their grievances are genuine but their methods to fight are not justified. Use of violence in a democratic era cannot bring about resolution of their problems. It is vitally necessary to use democratic space for solving the problems facing them. However, the youth maintained that independence is the only solution. The students of human rights particularly insisted on this course.

There was also a section of students who although did not insist on separation from India, but nevertheless, they had great feeling of alienation. They kept on quoting excesses committed by army and human rights violations. No doubt they had deep wounds as members of family of these students were killed or injured or in some cases women of their families were molested or dishonoured. They also said the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had promised ‘zero tolerance’ for violation of human rights but still violations go on.

A section of students also maintained we want to be part of Pakistan and not that of India. However, they were few in number but quite rigid on their position. It appears they belonged to Geelani’s Hurriyyat group. I pointed out that many nationalities in Pakistan like Baluch and Sindh themselves have launched cessationist movement and feel Pakistan is dominated by Punjab and small nationalities have no future. How can then Kashmir be happy with Pakistan.

Moreover, Pakistan have had no democracy and small democratic interregnum is always followed by military capturing power. In India there has been consistent democratic regime and there can be legitimate hope of accommodating democratic aspirations of Kashmiri people. Also, religion cannot be basis of nationalism as Bangla Desh shared religion with Pakistan but could not remain part of it for long. Language and culture are more stable basis of nationalism than religion. However, this small vocal section of students refused to be convinced and we had to disagree. It appears that due to their strong grievances with India (largely due to presence of 600,000 strong army) and hence Pakistan appears to be romantic alternative.

My experience with the workshop clearly established that educated youth does feel alienated from India and what is worse, nothing is being done to remove this feeling of alienation either by state government or Union Government. The feeling that India betrayed all promises made to people of Kashmir is really a sore point. They were promised full autonomy and Sheikh Abdullah gladly agreed to be with secular democratic India than with ‘theocratic Pakistan’.

However, this promise was not kept and autonomy was not only diluted after arrest of Sheikh Abdullah but altogether abolished slowly and Kashmir became simply a state like any other state in India. The 1953 agreement between Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah was also not honoured and much worse the agreement between Indira Gandhi and the Sheikh died with the death of Sheikh Abdullah. How can Kashmiris trust the Union Government.

Not only this, election after election was rigged and people of Kashmir felt they were not free to choose their own government. The rigging of 1987 elections proved the last straw on the camel’s back and this rigging led to great dissatisfaction among the people of Kashmir. In fact this was beginning of 1989 militancy. The Kashmiri youth thought they have no future in India and took to arms for ‘azadi’.

Since this workshop was for the youth, it gave real insights into their thinking as well as their problems. There is also greatly deal of discontent among them due to high degree of corruption in state government and administration. The educated youth is well aware of lack of economic development and job opportunities. Expansion of education and lack of job opportunities is an explosive combination. The fact that they are Muslims and Kashmiris makes them feel they are being deliberately kept out of jobs.

A top police official told me in private conversation that if Government of India has some vision it should open training centres for the youth for recruitment to NDA (National Defence Academy) and it will make lot of difference. This youth has been confined to Kashmir and has no idea of vast opportunities India offers. If they go out of valley and get job opportunities they will realise the importance of being with India. If their loyalties are suspect they may not be posted in Kashmir but may be posted in other parts of the country.

If the youth is involved with the Indian army it will make a great deal of difference. He also cited examples of certain youth who went out of Kashmir to places like Bangalore and other places and they feel to belong to India. If they remain confined to valley the sense of Indianness is not inculcated in them. I myself felt this while conducting the workshop.

The participants in the workshop had hardly any knowledge of India outside the valley. They even thought all Hindus are supporters of RSS and enemies of Muslims. It took lot of time to convince them that it is not so and that most of the Hindus are secular and only a small percentage of them are supporters of Hindu communalism. The fact that the BJP could not get more than 12 per cent votes until it raised highly emotive issue of Ramjanambhoomi and this emotional upsurge on this issue also did not last more than few years and hence BJP lost elections in 2004. This came as a surprise to many of them that most of the Hindus are secular.

Thus in order to win over the youth of Kashmir some concrete measures will have to be taken. I suggest the following steps:

1. It is necessary to hold such awareness raising camps in the valley to stress the importance of peace and creative use of democratic space. It should also be impressed on their minds that no amount of violence is going to solve their problems; in fact violence is part of problem and not part of solution.
2. In order to convince them of importance of peace as the only way to solve the problem, state also should try not to use army as a solution and avoid violations of human rights. Today violations of human rights in the valley is unacceptable and the Prime Minister’s assurance of ‘zero tolerance’ of human rights must be given top priority.
3. Greater job opportunities should be provided to the youth within the state and also outside the valley in central government institutions.
4. The young should also be recruited in armed forces and posted in places outside the Valley. Top priority should be given for recruitment in NDA. Service in armed forces would make them feel indeed very proud of being Indian. The Government of India should seriously consider this suggestion.
5. It is a wrong notion that pouring money into valley will win over the hearts and minds of people of Kashmir. Money can never assuage the hurt psyche. Sense of dignity and pride of being Kashmiri and Indian at the same time must be inculcated through various ingenious moves.
6. The educated youth is being indoctrinated today and they are even made to reject syncretic sufi culture of Kashmir. One participant even described it as ‘colonial discourse’. From school level itself sufi syncretic culture has to be emphasised.
7. Also, steps should be taken to restore autonomy of the valley which is politically viable in the present circumstances. The central government should appear to be honest in this matter.
8. All elections should be held fairly and there should be zero tolerance for rigging. It will vastly change the scenario and induce confidence among the people. The politicians should stop playing games, if they want to strengthen relations of Kashmir with India.

It also should be noted that by and large people of Kashmir are not in favour of joining Pakistan. However, their confidence must be won through political negotiations rather than through use of military force. That will not simply work. Jackboots cannot crush political aspirations. If we do not realise this we cannot solve the Kashmir problem in years to come.

Knighthood for Salman Rushdie and Muslims

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Knighthood conferred on Salman Rushdie by queen of England a few weeks ago has raised a great controversy throughout Islamic world. Some have conferred, in reaction to this title of Saif Allah (Allah’s Sword) by a group of extremist ‘Ulama in Pakistan. The conferment of knighthood on Salman Rushdie has revived the controversy which raged in nineties on his novel the Satanic Verses.

Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran who brought about Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979 had issued a fatwa to kill Salman Rushdie for insulting the Prophet of Islam (PBUH). It really became a serious confrontation between Western and Islamic world and it appeared as if the self-fulfilling prediction of ‘clash of civilizations’ is taking place. The western countries defended Salman Rushdie on grounds of human rights and Islamic World condemned Rushdie for his insolence against the Prophet (PBUH) and his wives.

Salman Rushdie was provided with security by the British government for years at a heavy cost as his life was in danger after Ayatollah Khomeini issued the fatwa. Later on however, though fatwa was not withdrawn it was almost treated as non-existent by authorities in Iran.

Now with conferment of knighthood the controversy has again been revived and angry demonstrations are taking place in many Muslim countries. However, it must be said that these demonstrations are not as extensive and intensive compared to what happened in early nineties. Nevertheless Muslims in general have been offended. It once again raises the question about right of expression and its limits.

Freedom of expression is a sacred right but it does not include right to insult founder of a religion who is held in high esteem by millions of his followers. But west does not agree. It recognizes no such limit. In the west films, novels, plays are written on Christ which go against the Christian beliefs. But Christians in Eastern countries like India do protest against such novels or films. When a film which did not conform to Christian beliefs was shown in India the Christians protested and demanded ban on it. It was allowed to be shown on certain conditions only.

In the West liberalism on one hand, and, indifference towards religion are almost a way of life. No one takes seriously anything written critical of religion or even anti-religion but it is very different in Asiatic countries, particularly in Islamic world in Asia and Africa. Liberalism in these countries is limited to few intellectuals and these intellectuals also often refrain from expressing their views publicly for fear of being ostracized.

Salman Rushdie’s book is not even serious critique of Islamic beliefs but ridiculing them. There is difference between attempting a serious critique disagreeing with certain beliefs and very much different to ridicule those beliefs. Rushdie uses technique of magic realism and transforms various characters considered to be sacred by Muslims into radically different forms. For example Jibrail Farishta is transformed into a Bollywood character. One can certainly use these techniques for ordinary characters but not characters like Jibrail through whom, Muslims believe, Prophet (PBUH) received revelation which was compiled in the form of Qur’an. Even Prophet’s wives are subjected to this treatment.

This can be hardly acceptable in the cultural and religious ethos in Asia in general and in Islamic world, in particular. Though there is no clash of civilizations but there are significant differences in civilizations and these differences should be respected and accommodated. The limits of freedom of expression are different in degree between western and eastern civilizations.

The latest development in Punjab also throws enough light on this question. It is not only Muslims who get agitated if their religion is ridiculed but also others like Hindus and Sikhs. The controversy between Sikhs and Dera Saccha Sauda assumed huge proportions and Sikhs came out on the streets with swords drawn. The Sikhs felt that the Chief of Dera Saccha Sauda by donning clothes of Guru Gobind Singh has insulted their religion. And even apology from Dera Saccha Sauda does not seem to satisfy them and they are insisting on arresting him and prosecuting him. This is the reality in our countries. The west must appreciate this reality and cannot insist on its own standards of liberalism and individual rights.

Having said this I would like to insist that Salman Rushdie, no doubt has exceeded the tolerance limit of Asians but one should also appreciate his creative talents which cannot go unrecognized. Except his novel Satanic Verses his other novels like Midnight children and several others are highly appreciated and one has to recognize his talent. It is also true that he is not anti-Muslim. As someone very aptly put it Salman both fights Muslims and fights for Muslims. It is literally true. He is committed to minority rights and he fights for their rights in U.K. and other countries. We should not judge him by one single novel.

It is also to be noted that it is the right of the U.K. government to confer honor on its citizens. We cannot dictate government of any sovereign country on whom to confer or not to confer honors. No sovereign government will like to be dictated. One can certainly makes ones feelings known through proper channels but should not take to streets and burn flag of that country. Flag represents dignity and sovereignty of a country and insulting someone’s flag amounts to insulting that country. It does not befit thinking people to tread over some country’s flag or burn it.

It is also important to remember that a creative writer is nothing if not subversive of established values, beliefs and practices. Only thing is that one must be conscious of decent limits of subversion, when it involves religious beliefs. Many beliefs are thought to be religious but are not religious. They pertain more to customs and traditions and social ethos. A writer has to be free to subvert such beliefs or practices.

If one does not have such freedom nothing in the world will change. All great thinkers have been subversive. Even in the Qur’an Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) (PBUH) has been shown as subversive of beliefs and practices of his people. Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) himself attacked superstitions around idols which Arabs worshipped and showed them the right path.

Thus all prophets have been subversive in one way or the other. Great poets and thinkers like Milton and Iqbal were attracted towards the character of Satan for his; challenging authorities and subverting establishment. His subversiveness makes Satan dynamic and this dynamism makes him attractive to some. But Satanic subversion of course is world apart from prophets’ subversion. Satanic subversion is totally negative whereas prophet’s subversion is positive in character. Prophetic subversion leads to creation of new world, a world that benefits whole humanity. Satanic subversion, on the other hand, only destroys. Both challenge established authority but prophets challenge authority which is oppressive, exploitative and unjust. Satanic subversion, on the other hand, challenges just authority and leads to darkness and leads to more oppression and exploitation.

Salman Rushdie, in his western environs totally confuses between prophetic and satanic subversions. He is an atheist and does not believe in religion, any religion. And like some other atheists assumes the character of atheistic character and thinks truth is only in his grip and ridicules those who do not agree with him. Thus he ridicules one kind of beliefs to establish another set of atheistic beliefs. And it is in this arrogance of possessing ‘truth’, he begins to ridicule all those who do not agree with him.

A sober atheist would not disregard truth in others’ beliefs. One set of truth should not be set against another set of truth and ridicule it. It is sheer arrogance. A serious atheist like Bertrand Russell attacked certain religious beliefs and practices of the Church only in philosophical sense. Bertrand Russell was himself a great subverter but also believer in the other world based on justice and compassion. He was firmly against war and stood for peace. He courted arrest during First World War opposing Britain’s entry into it and shocked whole country. He organized, along with Jean Paul Sartre, trial of war crimes against America committed in Vietnam. He was great peace activist.

Also, if we are true Muslims we should represent best in Islam. Among fundamental values of Islam are wisdom and tolerance. We should make our opposition known in most civilized manner. We should argue with the opponent on the basis of reasoned arguments and never use abusive language. Qur’an warns us not to abuse those who worship other than Allah; they will abuse Allah out of ignorance (6:109).

Thus our protest should be dignified and based on reason. Some politically motivated people exploit religious sentiments by organizing violent street demonstrations, burning effigies and flags. It does not represent best face of Islam and gives an impression Muslims are a fanatic and intolerant lot. It wins more sympathy for Salman Rushdie in the West and defeats the very purpose.

The purpose should not be to demonstrate violently but to convince western people that we are responsible and tolerant people and our religious sensibilities have been hurt. One should go for dialogue not for confrontation. Confrontation takes us nowhere and pays only some power hungry politicians, does not uphold cause of Islam, tolerance and freedom. Freedom of conscience is as central to Islam as to western world. We are, however, failing to communicate this central value of Islam.

Liberative theology of Islam

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Islam came into existence in circumstances, which were crying for liberation. The society in which Islam was born was tribal society lacking in any written law or well established social, political and economic institutions. People were steeped in superstitions. There was no written tradition and in pre-Islamic Mecca there were no more than 17 persons who could read and write.

Women, like in other societies of the time, enjoyed no respectability, dignity or status. Though throughout Arabia conditions of women differed, generally their plight was far from satisfactory. In many instances a girl child was buried alive. Women, in most parts of Arabia did not enjoy rights. Men could divorce them at will and could even pronounce triple divorce in one go and throw woman out of his house. In some parts of Arabia even polyandry was practiced.

Slavery was widespread and slaves had no rights at all and they were generally maltreated. Master could enjoy sexual relations with slave-girls as a matter of rights and could even use her for earning through prostitution. The plight of slaves was worse in Mecca where they were used for loading and unloading camels carrying luxury goods for trade across desert to parts of Roman Empire towards North and Northwest.

The poor and orphans and widows and other weaker sections of society were being totally neglected as against tribal traditions and few tribal leaders were indulging in reckless accumulation of wealth. Mecca was experiencing great social tensions. Weaker sections were feeling highly dissatisfied with existing conditions but had no way out. There were no political institutions, nor any available channels of protest.

Mecca was in a state of transition. Old tribal structure was breaking down and new socio-economic situation was fast emerging but Meccan society lacked corresponding economic, political, cultural and spiritual institutions. The new emerging society needed institutions corresponding to new changes taking place in Meccan society. The old institutions were totally out of place and thoroughly inadequate to meet new challenges.

The Prophet of Islam, a sensitive soul to others’ suffering, himself was an orphan and had first hand knowledge of the suffering and social and spiritual malaise then existing in Mecca. He retreated to a cave and began reflecting on the given situation. He began to receive revelation, which was not only spiritual but also designed to address people’s problems in specific situation of Mecca as well as universally for all human beings.

The Meccan revelations were spiritual as well as socio-economic in content. It emphasised values of justice (‘adl), benevolence (ihsan), rahmah (compassion) and hikmah (wisdom). These values, though not totally unknown in Arabian society, were hardly emphasised, let alone practiced. The Qur’an laid central emphasis on these values and made them very basis of reconstruction of new society. Islam created concept of a new human being – a mu’min, who would base her/his character on these values. Such a new human would be a liberated human being.

The revelatory message received by the Prophet was liberative at various levels – spiritual, social and economic and they created new institutions, which formed the basis of this comprehensive liberation. Since these values and institutions based on these values were highly detrimental to the vested interests dominating the Meccan society, they opposed the new movement tooth and nail.

Islam came with a liberative message at different level, as pointed out above. Its first liberative level is spiritual. But what is to be noted is that the spiritual is not devoid of social. The very spiritual basis of Islam is belief in one God – Allah. However, this spiritual contained social in it in as much as unity of God on theological level also translated into unity of all breaking all tribal barriers, on social level.

If one accepts concept of one God transcending all tribal barriers, it would result in shift of power from tribal leaders to the giver of this message, namely the Prophet of Islam. The tribal leaders who controlled all levers of social, economic and political power, were not ready to accept this shift of power from them to the Messenger of Allah.

For a tribally fragmented society of Arabs message of unity of God i.e. tawhid was quite revolutionary indeed. It had great potential of transcending all tribal, national, racial and geographical barriers and establishing a universal society freed of all prejudices of tribe, race, caste, ethnicity, language and colour. And the Qur’an indeed gave this message of unity of all human beings in different ways, see verse 49:13. According to this verse though human beings have been created as different tribes and nations so that they could be identified, not for permanent division. Also it made it clear that all human beings have equal honour (17:70). Whatever ones nation, caste, colour or tribe, all have equal dignity.

This was indeed a revolutionary message of equality of all human beings and effective tool to demolish all barriers. No wonder than the tribal leaders in Mecca strongly resented this social shift in power from tribes to new human community and not only opposed but also persecuted him and his followers.

The very first revelation to the Prophet emphasised reading and acquisition of knowledge (96:1). As pointed out above, there were only 17 persons among Arabs of Mecca who could read and write. Thus Qur’an emphasised learning through reading. Knowledge is great liberator and the Qur’an repeatedly uses the word ‘ilm (knowledge). Allah is also repeatedly described in the Qur’an as ‘Alim, Allam (Knower or Great Knower) and people are exhorted again and again to learn and to acquire knowledge.

Thus learning and knowledge became the keel of Islamic culture. The Muslims not only developed their own knowledge based on Qur’an and hadith (the Prophet’s sayings and doings) but also revived forgotten knowledge of the Greeks, Persians and Indians which happened to be the ancient centres of learning. They produced great philosophers and scientists in the first 6 centuries of Islam. Thus not only Arabia but also other parts of world who were living life of ignorance and superstitions were liberated and new civilization based on spiritual and, philosophical and physical sciences was created. It gave much needed light to the world.

The Qur’an brought about liberation on another plane, not only for the Arabs but for entire humanity. It tried to rid the society of prevailing social and religious superstitions and taught them importance of reason ‘aql. In Mecca due to ignorance and tribal customs, many superstitious practices were prevalent. People prayed to various tribal gods and goddesses and wove fabric of blind faith around them.

The concept of one God and universal dignity of human beings with the power of reasoning helped break this unusual hold of superstition on the minds of people. The Qur’an attacked blind faith in these superstitions and emphasised the need for reasoning and reflection (ta’aqqul and tafakkur). The story of Prophet Abraham and his conversion from a superstitious worshipper of stars and idols, small and big to a worshipper of one God, effectively brings out need for reasoning in Qur’an.

This emphasis on reasoning and faith encouraged Muslims to observe phenomenon of this universe and reflect on its creation and creator. It also emphasised unity of creation and laws of creation. It tried to demolish various superstitions by emphasising that laws of nature do not change (35:43). People normally expected God to favour them and alter natural laws to favour them. The Qur’an maintained resolutely that Allah does not change laws of nature to favour any one. This is very basis of science. Laws of nature do not change for sake of any individual and study of these laws brings about scientific progress.

Thus the Qur’an liberated man beings from various superstitions and expectations of miracles, laying foundation for sound rational thinking. However, all sorts of superstition returned to Muslim society for various reasons, not to be discussed here. Its causes are poverty, illiteracy and backwardness, not Islam. Its generally poorer and weaker sections of society which embraced Islam thus dragging it to their own level, rather than rising to the higher rational and spiritual levels of the Qur’an.

Another level of liberation is liberation from poverty, oppression and injustices bringing about just distribution of wealth. The Qur’an showed great sympathy with weaker sections of society and attacked accumulation of wealth at the cost of suffering of others. The Qur’an says Allah is with weaker sections of society (see 28:5). Oppression and exploitation (zulm) is strongly condemned by the Qur’an. Zulm literally means darkness implying thereby that exploitation and oppression leads the world to darkness.

Similarly the Qur’an lays great emphasis on justice (‘adl). It lays moral foundation of society of justice and Allah is described as Just (‘Adil). No one suffer injustices at the hands of Allah on the Day of Judgement (99:7). Justice is very central to the Qur’anic morality. The whole social order is to be based on justice and it is duty of Muslims to fight against zulm which essentially means injustice. The Qur’an also exhorts Muslims not to weigh less and this means essentially to keep balance in social order. An unjust social order is un-Islamic order.

Qur’an comprehensively deals with the question of justice. Justice (‘adl) is fundamental value in Qur’an including economic justice or distributive justice. The most disturbing aspect of early Islamic movement in Mecca, as far as the powerful tribal leaders were concerned, was Qur’anic attack on accumulation of wealth. Qur’an powerfully denounced accumulation of wealth in chapter 104, which is a Meccan chapter. Such verses greatly perturbed the Meccan leaders.

For them to accept the Prophet’s denunciation of accumulation of wealth amounted to self denunciation and injuring their self respect. Also, it would have meant distributing their wealth to the needy. It should be noted that due to accumulation of wealth social tensions were on increase in Meeca and poverty was spreading. What was worse the poor, the orphans and the needy were being totally neglected.

Also, there was no government to take care of the poor by taxing the rich and bringing about redistribution of wealth. Not only that tribal leaders were neglecting their win tribal norms, they were indulging in ostentatious life. Such ostentatious life-style further exacerbated social unrest. The Qur’an, therefore, instituted the concept of zakah (poor tax), which was made obligatory for the rich. This zakah amount so collected was to be distributed among the weaker sections of society.

The concept of zakah was instituted to help all weaker sections of society including slaves and the indebted see verse 9:60. This verse clearly shows how sensitive the Qur’an is to the sufferings of weaker sections of society. A healthy society is one which is essentially a society in which all can live with freedom and dignity and this is not possible if a section of population lives in poverty, in need or as indebted. Such people cannot hold their head high, let alone enjoy dignity.

In Mecca the opposite was happening; the poor was being neglected, slavery was widespread and a large number of people were indebted. The rich cannot show off and indulge in ostentation proudly if there are no people of lowly status to compare with. The rich wants to be privileged vis-à-vis the poor and weak. Status and privilege caters to their ego. If the poor is given rights and dignity the rich resent it.

The message of Islam was highly liberative for the poor as Islam treated all human beings as equal in dignity and declared in verse 49:13. Thus not the rich but the honest and pious are closer to Allah. This greatly hurt their ego. The rich always think they are the best and most desirable and hate the weaker section of society.

The Prophet, on the other hand, gave great importance to the lowliest of low in the society. He liberated his slave Bilal and gave him the privilege of calling the faithfuls to prayer. This privilege the Prophet did not give to some of his better off companions. The Prophet wanted to give message of equality that a slave, liberated or otherwise, is as dignified as any other human being who is rich and powerful.

The rich of Mecca thus greatly resented rise of the Prophet and his equalising movement. The Prophet was bringing about shift of power from rich to the downtrodden of Mecca (and thereby of all the downtrodden of the world) and this was not in any case acceptable to the rich and powerful of Mecca (neither it would ever be acceptable to the rich and powerful of the world anywhere). If this fundamental shift of power from rich and powerful to the downtrodden of the world takes place the world will become much more just and peaceful.

The Qur’an, it is very interesting to note, made establishing a just world order a spiritual act, an act of prayer. All verses in Qur’an about prayer (salat) are coupled with giving of zakah. Thus prayer must be accompanied by giving of zakah to ameliorate the plight of the poor and needy and the indebted. Mere prayer to Allah will be merely a personal spiritual act, at best but this personal spirituality will not remove economic distress from the world and that world which is full of suffering for other human beings, cannot be a truly spiritual world.

Thus to relieve the poor and marginalized of their distress and suffering is an spiritual act. The Prophet is also reported to have said that to feed a hungry widow is more meritorious than praying whole night. The Qur’an does not approve of prayer (salat) when the orphans and needy are suffering and being pushed away. Such prayer will be soulless and for only showing off. (see chapter 107). Thus Islam stresses collective spirituality through ceaseless efforts to end all forms of exploitation and oppression.

The concept of jihad in Islam has been very much misunderstood thanks to misuse of the concept by handful of Muslims for their own vested interests. According to the Prophet real and best form of jihad is to speak truth on the face of a tyrant authority. It need not be said that one cannot establish a just society without struggling against tyranny and exploitation in ones own society. A liberated society is possible only through constant struggle for justice and dignity for whole of humanity.

Thus jihad is always directed against zulm – oppression and exploitation. It can never be directed against innocent people. Taking lives of innocent people amounts to zulm and jihad is meant fight against zulm. Such jihad would mean perpetrating zulm rather than fighting against it. The struggle against tyranny and exploitation should never take violent form. Needless violence vitiates the goal of a just society. That is why violence is not permitted by the Qur’an except for self- defence and any violation of this principle amounts to exceeding the limits (hudud) set by Allah. (see 2:190).

Jihad is not an individual concept. It is a collective struggle by all people against tyrants and exploiters. Jihad is a very important concept in Islam. Jihad is a struggle for justice and human dignity and for establishing a society where human rights and human dignity will be ensured and is collective and peaceful action. The Qur’an requires all faithfuls to enforce good (ma’ruf) and fight evil (munkar).

What is ma’ruf? It is nothing but all that is good and what is good – something that is just and what is evil? It is injustice and exploitation. Enforcing what is good and fighting what is evil is the best jihad one can wage and it is collective and on-going one. Thus jihad is not by weapons but through peaceful struggles, refusing to accept what is unjust and against dignity of all human beings.

In this respect the chapter 103, which was revealed in Mecca. The translation of this small chapter is as under:

By the Time!

Surely human being is in loss,

Except those who believe and do good, and exhort one another to Truth,

And exhort one another to patience.

In these few lines the Qur’an has said everything that need to be said for good of humanity, for its liberation. Human beings would remain in loss unless they believe in good and do good. They should induce each other for following truth and for remaining patient. One cannot believe and do good and be truthful without having tremendous degree of patience.

This is certainly not one time action, it is constant process; it cannot be confined to one person, it is a collective act and that is why the Qur’an uses plural and not singular form. All Human beings will be in loss if they do not believe in good and truth and continuously struggle for these values and with all patience at their command. These words, goodness, truth and patience clearly show that peaceful struggle is required, not violent one resulting in bloodshed.

Imam Shafi’I, one of the great jurists of Islam rightly observed that if only this surah (chapter) was revealed and nothing else to the Prophet, it would have been more than sufficient. This small chapter contains everything a human society needs for welfare of entire humanity. Such a society can only be a liberated society from all forms of injustices, oppression and exploitation.

Since no society can be free of all forms of oppression, exploitation and injustices, there is need for constant struggle by those who believe in justice, human dignity and truth and this belief need to be practiced as much as believed. One should keep continuous vigil against zulm and any form of exploitation.

Thus it will be seen that the Qur’an came as a liberator of entire humanity and brought those fundamental values, which are needed to evolve a liberated society. The Qur’an also accepts the fact that several prophets, guides and seers came in this world for the same purpose and Muhammad (PBUH) was the last among them. Thus in essence all religions of the world came for liberation of humanity but some human beings, to serve their own vested interests, sabotaged or distorted this message of liberation and the world could not be liberated from exploitation, injustices and indignities.

There is strong need today for followers of all religions and believers in fundamental values like equality, justice, truth, love, compassion, peace, human dignity and sensitivity to suffering, should come together and struggle for restoring these values in practice.

M.N.Roy on historical role of Islam

by Asghar Ai Engineer

M.N.Roy was greatly attracted towards Marxism though later on he renounced his Marxist views and became a secularist and rationalist. He was critical of traditional religion and wanted a secular state to remain away from religious ideologies and religious institutions to maintain its secular character. However, he was highly appreciative of democratic and egalitarian character of Islam and Islamic teachings.

Before we throw light on Roy’s views about Islam we would like to assert that any modern thinkers, literateurs and writers have greatly appreciated democratic and egalitarian character of Islam but have regretted at the same time that Muslims did not remain true to Islamic teachings. Islam, besides other things greatly stressed the importance of justice. Justice forms one of the core teachings of Islam. It lays great emphasis on all forms of justice, social, economic as well as gender justice. However, Islamic society, which ought to have been an exemplary just society soon degenerated into tyrannical hierarchical society. Women lost their Qur’anic rights and common Muslims their social and political rights. Feudalism and feudal values overwhelmed Islamic values and Islamic revolution was undone within three decades of its inception. Imam Husain, the grandson of the Prophet made a lastly attempt to restore Islamic values through his martyrdom but his was the last protest.

Husain’s martyrdom did inspire subsequent generation of Muslims but the protest was defused and deactivated by giving it a harmless form of mourning. It lost its revolutionary thrust and did not challenge the personal tyrannical rule and various dynastic rulers captured power. However, it is not our intention here to throw light on Muslim history but on Roy’s views of Islam.

M.N.Roy’s book was first published in 1939. Roy was from a Brahmin family from West Bengal. He began to take part in underground revolutionary activity at the age of 14. His revolutionary zeal took him to various countries in search of arms from Java to Japan to China to San Francisco to Mexico. In Mexico he joined Mexican Socialist Party. Thereafter Roy went to Moscow in 1920 and met Lenin to discuss with him the national liberation movements in colonial countries. His commitment and intellectual sharpness enabled him to occupy high positions in all policy-making bodies of the Communist International.

Roy came to India in 1930 incognito but was arrested in July 1931 and was tried and sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years for conspiring to overthrow the British Government. However, his sentence was reduced to six years on appeal. He completed the sentence in 1936 and was released from Jail. He appealed to Indians to join Indian National Congress in millions. He wanted the Congress leaders to thoroughly democratise the Congress and build it from village and Taluka level. He wrote Historical Role of Islam during this period in 1939 when he was struggling for thorough democratisation of society.

It was during this struggle that he realised the importance of the role Islam had played in history. Thus he writes in the introductory chapter of his book “But with us, today in India, particularly with Hindus, a proper understanding of the historical role of Islam and the contribution it has made to human culture has acquired a supreme political importance.� He acknowledges that India has more Muslims than any single Islamic country (he wrote this before partition) and yet he felt after centuries of existence of Muslims they are considered an extraneous element. Roy says, “So completely have the Mohammedans become an integral part of the Indian nation that the annals of the Muslim rule are justly recorded as chapters of history of India.�

As for prejudice against Muslims and Islam Roy ascribes it to the relationship between the conquerors and the conquered. Though this relationship, he says has become the thing of the past but the prejudice remains and this prejudice has become “not only an effective obstacle to national cohesion but also a hindrance for a dispassionate view of history.� He also feels that “No civilised people in the world are so ignorant of Islamic history and contemptuous of the Mohammedan religion as the Hindus. Spiritual imperialism is an outstanding feature of our nationalist ideology.�

Roy quotes the famous historian Gibbon when he describes rise and expansion of Islam as “one of the most memorable revolutions which has impressed a new and lasting character on the nations of the globe.� Roy then goes on to say, “One is simply amazed to contemplate the incredible rapidity with which the two mightiest empires of the ancient time were subverted by the comparatively small band of nomads issuing from the Arabian desert fired with the zeal of a new faith. Hardly fifty years had passed since Mohammad assumed the role of the singular Prophet spreading his Message of peace at the point of the sword, when his followers victoriously planted the banner of Islam on the confines of India, on the one hand, and on the shores of the Atlantic, on the other.�

Roy, with his Marxist background and sharp intellect could penetrate to the causes of the rapid spread of Islam with its revolutionary message. Roy, unlike other historians or interpreters of Islam did not confine this understanding to the religious and spiritual side of Islam but brought to the front its political side and rich cultural contribution. Thus he maintains, “Islam rose rather as a political movement than a religion in the strictest sense of the word. In the initial stages of its history, it was essentially a call for the unity of the nomadic tribes inhabiting the Arabian desert.�

Christianity at one time had given the oppressed of the world a hope but once opted by the Roman empire it lost its revolutionary character and degenerated into a prop for the oppressive empire. Now the message of hope and salvation came from the “Caravan traders of Arabia who had stood outside the corrupting atmosphere of the decomposed Roman world, and prospered by their advantageous position�. The “Revolt of Islam� saved humanity.�

There is great need to understand this character of Islam. It was revolt against the corrupt and exploitative establishment. The Qur’anic message was to empower the ‘mustad’ifin (weaker sections) of society and disinherit the mustakbirin (the arrogant and powerful). Qur’an narrates the story of Israelites and Pharoas as that of the oppressed and the powerful and the victory of the Israelites led by Moses is the victory of the oppressed. Allah promises to make the mustad’ifin inherit this earth. It was this revolutionary message of the Qur’an, which empowered the nomads of the desert to conquer the world and smash the oppressive and exploitative Roman and Sassanid empires, the two most powerful empires of the world. It is this revolutionary and political character of Islam that attracts M. N. Roy, himself a one time revolutionary.

Roy strongly disagrees with those who utterly distort Islamic history and denigrate it as fanatical movement with ‘sword in one hand, and the Qur’an in the other’. He maintains that Muslim conquerors, unlike other barbarians, were distinguished “by the nobility of their character, purity of purpose and piety of spirit. Their devoutness might have been fortified by superstition, but was not strained by hypocrisy. Their fanaticism was softened by generosity and sound common-sense. Their ambition was remarkably free from selfishness.�

Roy, in order to prove his point, quotes from the advice given by the first Caliph Abu Bakr to his followers, which explains why Islam attracted people to its fold. Roy says his (Abu Bakr’s) memorable injunctions to the “Army of God� ran thus: “Be just; the unjust never prosper. Be valiant; die rather than yield. Be merciful; slay neither old men, nor women, nor children. Destroy neither fruit trees, nor grains, nor cattle. Keep your word even to your enemy. Molest not those men who live retired from the world.�

Then Roy comments that “he irresistible march of the ‘Army of God’ bears testimony to that this remarkable injunction was uttered sincerely by the venerable chief, and obeyed strictly by the devout followers.� Roy also rightly points out that these Saracen invaders hardly faced any resistance and were welcome by people as liberators. The early historians of Islam like Baladhuri also point out that oppressed people of Roman Empire opened the doors of strong citadels as these invaders were seen as liberators. Fakhri, another historian has also left for the posterity the dialogue between Rustam, the bravest general of Iran and the two ambassadors sent by Sa’ad bin Waqqas. These two ‘simpleton Bedouins’ dismissed with contempt by Rustom had warned is (Rustom) that tomorrow when we fight you in the battlefield you will be defeated because all your slaves and oppressed peasantry will support us. And this is precisely what happened and the ruler of Sassanid Empire had to run for his life. The slaves and oppressed peasants welcomed these simpleton Bedoins as their liberators.

Thus Roy observes “Everywhere the Saracen invaders were welcome as deliverers by peoples oppressed and tormented by Byzantine corruption, Persian despotism and Christian superstition. Fanatically faithful to the revolutionary teachings of the Prophet, and obediently acting according to the noble wise and eminently practical injunctions of the Khalif, the Saracen invaders easily enlisted the sympathy and support of the peoples they conquered. No invader can establish an abiding domination over conquered peoples, except with their active support or tacit tolerance.�

Roy could easily understand this revolutionary character of teachings of Islam and dynamism of early Islamic history because he himself was a revolutionary and was fighting against the tyrannical rule of colonial establishment and wanted to see India transformed into a just and democratic society. Islam played great role in transforming the primitive tribal Arabia into a most powerful and most modern empire according to the standards of those days. Russia, the then primitive from the then contemporary standards of Europe was transformed into most modern and dynamic nation of its time after revolution.

This was possible in Arabia because of revolutionary teachings of Islam on one hand, and, because of supreme sacrifices and simple life pattern adopted by the Prophet and his close companions. Roy gives few examples of the style of those early revolutionaries. “Khaled�, he says, “whom the Prophet called the ‘sword of God’, whose almost legendary valour had united Aqrabia, Mesopotamia and Syria under the banner of Islam, died in the possession only of his horse, his arms, and a single slave. The great hero is credited to have declared in his youth, ‘it is not the delicacies of Syria, or fading delights of this world, that have prompted me to devote my life in the cause of religion, I only seek the favour of God, and his apostle.’(recorded by the historian Abul Feda).

Then he gives example of Omrou. “The valiant conqueror of Egypt�, he says, “Omrou, was distinguished by poetic genius in addition to martial valour. The following remarkable passage occurs in his report to Khalif Omar: ‘The crowds of husbandmen who blacken the land may be compared to a swarm of industrious ants; and their native indolence is quickened by the lash of the taskmaster. But the riches they extract are unequally shared between those who labour and those who possess.’ That was a view far advance in time. The idea of social equity was unknown in all the lands of ancient civilisation. The toilers, either as slaves or as sudras were object of contempt and exploitation. They were hardly considered as human beings. The economic principle, primitively formulated in the memorable injunction of the first Khalif, evolved out of the interest of the Arab traders, revolutionised the old social idea. A part of the wealth produced by the toiling masses, when left with themselves, becomes a powerful impetus to trade. In his administration of the conquered kingdoms of the Pharaos and the Ptolmies, the Arab warrior sought with success to mend glaring inequities that had offended his poetic vision. Egypt, robbed and despoiled for centuries by the Greeks and the Romans, prospered under the Saracens.

Roy was also aware that the state of war and conquest did not last for ever. It was but a temporary phase. The Arabs and other Muslims showed their intellectual calibre too and also engaged in trade and industry. The Saracens (some suggest it is corrupted form of sehranashin i.e. dwellers in desert) sought prosperity not only through wars of conquest but also through trade and industry; fame, not only in the field of battle, but in the pursuit of science and literature; and happiness, no longer in the fanatical worship of one God and his only Prophet, but in the harmless enjoyment of domestic and social life. War was no longer the passion and proud profession of the Saracens, because they had found interest and delight in a peaceful world created by the prowess of their forefathers. The progeny of the intrepid heroes, who had flocked to the belligerent standard of Abu Bakr and Omar, with the hope of paradise and incidentally earthly spoils, found the modest occupation of trade and industry more profitable, and science and philosophy more gratifying.�

It is interesting to note that prosperity and valour in battlefield do not go together. Prosperity and intellectual pursuits did have telling effect on the Muslim valour and they fell easy prey to Mongol hordes who sacked Baghdad in 1258. The noted historian Fakhri, referred to above, has drawn this contrast when the Arabs invaded Iran during the second Caliph’s reign and defeated army of Rustom who was known for is valour. The Persians sunk in prosperity and luxurious living could not face the Bedouins charged with zeal of new faith and devoid of soft life but few hundred years later, Fakhri points out, the same Arabs, now used to soft life and luxurious living could not stand up to the Changezi hordes fired with the zeal of conquering the world.

Roy also counters the myth that Islam and war go together. He maintains that it is gross misunderstanding of history to confound Islam with militarism. He rightly points out that the prophet of Islam was not the Prophet of Saracen warriors but of Arab Merchants of Mecca. The very name of his religion Islam means to make or making of peace indicates his aim. Thus his aim was to establish peace in the world. Peace on earth, Roy says was of immediate importance, and greater consequence. Even the temporal interest of Arabian merchants required it; for trade thrives under peaceful conditions.

Roy points out that the main arteries of international trade of the medieval world ran through the countries which embraced Islam and were united in the Saracen Empire. The northern routes of trade with China, which passed through Constantinople to Italy and other countries of Western Europe, had become extremely risky owing to the Scythian inroads and ruinous fiscal policy of the Byzantine Empire. After their conquest of Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia and the territories across the Oxus, the Arabs captured the Chinese trade and diverted it to pass through their domain of North Africa and Spain, ultimately to reach the markets of Western Europe. During the eighth to the eleventh centuries, practically the entire trade between India and China, on the one hand, and Europe, on the other, was done by the Arabs. Thousands of traders travelled with their caravans loaded with precious cargoes. They were not persecuted or detested as their kind had been in all the countries of antique civilisation with the honourable exception of Greece. In the Empire of Saracens they belonged to the ruling class.

Thus M.N.Roy points out that Islam promoted trade unlike feudal monarchs of ancient empires persecuted traders and levied heavy taxes on them. Thus Islam represented progressive forces as against feudal monarchy. Thus Islam was of great help in promoting world trade and so also paved way for peace and prosperity not only in Arabia but also in other countries liked together by way of trade.

Roy repeatedly stresses that Islam did not promote war but peace. He refutes the propaganda that it offered Qur’an or the sword. He says, “as a matter of fact, the alternatives were very differently offered. It was: Accept the Koran or pay tribute to the Saracen conqueror!. The Sword of God was unsheathed only when neither of the alternatives was accepted. The economic interest of the Arab trader, which produced the monotheistic creed of Islam, was antagonistic to the indiscriminate bloodshed. The lands through which the trade-routes lay must be conquered and brought under the domination of the unitary state. The object would be all the better realised, should the conquered peoples accept the new religion; for, then the Unitarian State would be established on a solid foundation.

However, Roy also points out that production and consumption of commodities are the essential factors of trade. Therefore, it was not compatible with the historic role of Islam to massacre the artisan and peasant masses, or to destroy opulent cities for the impiety of rejecting the Koran. What was necessary was their subjugation to the believers of the new creed. Under the domination of the followers of the Prophet, unbelieving peoples were allowed to hold their imperfect faiths and to continue their perverse worships.

Roy perhaps was not aware of the Qur’anic teachings well enough as the Qur’an gives complete freedom to people to follow their religion. The Qur’an clearly states that “there is no compulsion in matters of faith.� Even unbelievers have been given freedom to worship in their own way after warning that they will be accountable to Allah for what they do. Islam, not only gave freedom to people to pursue their respective faiths but also declared that Allah had sent prophets or guides to all peoples and nations in the world. Thus it accepted the truth of other religions as well. The Qur’an asserted that it has come to confirm the Truth already existing.

Roy, however, is aware of the fact that Islam did not spread because of its intolerance of other faiths but the inner contradiction of pre-existing religions. Thus he clearly points out “…the cause of the sweeping religious revolution was not the intolerance of the new creed (i.e. Islam), but the decay of the old faith, and the general chaos and despair caused by that decay. The faith of the gospel of Jesus, established by the talent, piety and power of Cyrian, Athanasius and Augustine, had been subverted by Arian and Donatist heresies, and Catholic fury with which the impoverished masses revolting under the banner of religious heresy suppressed, had ruined the once prosperous provinces economically.�

Thus it will be seen that Roy tried to understand historical role of Islam more objectively compared to those who view it with hostility or with inherited prejudices and ascribe to it their own views. Roy thus rendered great service by projecting historical rule of Islam in an unbiased manner. Roy was not a believer in religion as he was Marxist and rationalist (though he had renounced his Marxist views) but still he had honesty to understand the historical rule of Islam more objectively compared to others. Also, he found Islam far more progressive, egalitarian and advocating justice for all.

His contemporaries in India were highly prejudicial to Islam and denounced it as a religion of fanatics and warmongers. Seen in this background Roy viewed Islam and its historical role with unprejudiced mind and therein lies the importance of this book. He also points out that European renaissance would not have been possible but for Arabs who preserved Greek knowledge and passed it on to Europe through Averos.

Roy comes to the conclusion that “Islam as the most rigorous mono-theistic religion closed the chapter of human history dominated by the religious node of thought, and by its very nature was open to unorthodox interpretations which eventually liquidated the religious mode of thought and laid foundation of modern rationalism.�

One may not of course agree with everything that Roy says about Islam and its historical rule but much that he says is quite valuable and fights prejudices against Islam prevalent even today and it is for this reason that I have chosen to write on Roy’s book on Historical Role of Islam.

Links:

Historical Role of Islam : book by M. N. Roy (complete text)

Malegaon blasts : Partisan approach and biased police

By Asghar Ali Engineer

Malegaon blasts took place on 8th September 2006 in which 37 people were killed and many more were injured. It was Friday and Shab-e-Barat, a holy festival of prayer for the dead. Thousands of people had gathered on that day to pray for their dead in the cemetery and for noon prayer in the mosque. It was when worshippers were coming out of the mosque that three bombs went off at short intervals causing death and destruction.

Unlike Mumbai train blasts the police showed hardly any enthusiasm for investigation. In Mumbai the Anti Terrorist Squad worked overtime and solved the case in one month. In case of Malegaon it appeared, as the police is hardly interested in catching the culprits. Most of the human rights activists and Muslim leaders from Malegaon felt that the bombs could have been planted by some extremist Hindu organisations like the Bajrang Dal.

The Malegaon Muslim leaders maintain that in Nanded in the month of April 2006, before Malegaon blasts, there was explosion in the house of a RSS activist Laxman Rajkondwar in which two persons were killed, one of whom was Laxman Rajkondwar’s son Naresh Rajkondwar. Also, in Ahmednagar, some bomb shells and 195 Kgm. RDX was caught from one Shankar Shelke’s shop on 16th September. The shop owner committed suicide next day. Then more than 300 Kgms. of ammonium nitrate, timers and fusers were caught from the house of a Sarpanch of a village few kms from Aurangabad.

Many activists and Muslim leaders urged upon the government and police authorities in Maharashtra to investigate the connection between Malegaon explosions and these incidents but the police and the ATS authorities turned deaf ear. The ATS and district police had prejudged the whole issue and was connecting these blasts to Mumbai train blasts and were looking for ISI connection.

There was no headway until recently when the police started arresting some labourers from Malegaon and then they arrested two Unani doctors alleging they have Pakistani connection. There is no doubt police is highly biased in investigating Malegaon bomb blasts and it has as if inbuilt bias against Muslims in investigation.

Polarized city

I visited Malegaon along with Nandini Chavan of our Centre to meet people and try to find out possible cause of the blasts and persons likely to be responsible. We met Hindu as well as Muslim leaders, Hindu as well as Muslim politicians and social activists and ordinary Muslims and Hindus on the street to assess their opinion as to who could be responsible for the bomb blasts in Malegaon.

We found that the city of Malegaon was completely polarised between Hindus and Muslims; all Hindus maintaining that some Muslims are responsible for the bomb blasts and all Muslims saying extremist Hindus have done it. However, both Hindus and Muslims said the perpetrators are not from Malegaon. It is job of some outsiders. They emphatically said that no one from Malegaon would do it. They all love Malegaon.

And ironically the ATS has arrested some young Muslim men from Malegoan only. They are allegedly ex-members of SIMI Somehow police has its fixation with SIMI and thinks all ex-members of SIMI are involved in bomb explosions. Those persons arrested are ordinary workers and two Unani doctors. All Muslims in Malegaon irrespective of their political and religious affiliations strongly refute police approach that it is handiwork of Nurul Huda, a worker in battery factory of Shabbir Batterywala.

Investigation

Malegaon Muslim leaders also say that though so much RDX, ammonium nitrate and fusers, timers etc. were caught from some Hindu shops and houses, police is not prepared to look into this aspect and interrogate these persons in connection with Malegaon blasts. I met the S.P. Rural of Nashik district who is in charge of bomb blast investigation in Malegaon and had detailed discussion with him. It was quite clear that he also had same approach that it is work of some Muslims and there is no possibility of any Hindu being involved.

His logic was that Malegaon city is a Muslim majority area and no Hindu will dare do it in Muslim majority area. It was strange logic indeed. It is just Malegaon that is Muslim majority area, not even district. Along with rural areas it is Hindus who are in majority and then what about the district, state and country? He also argued that if a Hindu had done it he would have tried to inflict maximum loss of life and would have planted bomb at night when many more people gather.

But the time bombs went off on 8th September (1-30 P.M.) was also a peak time as thousands of Muslims go for prayer on Friday specially on Shab-e-Barat and if loud speakers had not stopped for few minutes, thousands of Muslims would have come out of the mosque and damage would have been much greater. There was no explanation for this. The Muslim leaders also told us that bombs were kept on two cycles, which were bought from a shop in Malegaon and buyers’ sketches were prepared by the police.

However, Muslim leaders say, police has made no efforts so far to arrest those two persons whose sketches were prepared and instead arrested Nurul Huda and others. What happened to those two persons who bought cycles? Who were they? Can the police jump to the final conclusion as to who the culprits are without first tracing those whose sketches were prepared? Police has no answer.

The Malegaon Muslims are very perturbed that why police is not interrogating extremist Hindus and why is it after some Muslims from Malegaon? Has the police completely written off the possibility of some extremist Hindus being involved? Mr.Rajwardhan, S.P. Police told us that he has interrogated some Hindus but he is not prepared to disclose their names? Why? When the police interrogates Muslims their names are publicised through the media. Nurul Huda was detained and his name was publicised in the media. But so far no Hindu who was interrogated or detained has come out in the media. Why keep these names under wrap?

We feel that no Muslim, much less from Malegaon itself, would keep bombs in a mosque that too on Friday and a holy festival. When I asked Shri Rajwardhan why should a Muslim keep bombs to kill Muslims on such a day of festivity, his reply was that they intended to cause Hindu-Muslim riot. Again if Hindu-Muslim riot takes place, it is Muslims who will heavily suffer as the past riots in Malegaon clearly show. Why then Muslims from Malegaon itself should do something to cause Hindu-Muslim riots? Perhaps he was suggesting that ISI of Pakistan was interested in inciting Hindu-Muslim riots.

This is hardly convincing. In case of Mumbai train explosions ISI involvement seemed quite possible and the police claims to have established ISI links in case of Mumbai blasts and it appears to be quite convincing. But to suggest this in case of Malegaon is absurd. Even the police has not claimed so far that there is any ISI link. It has only suggested SIMI connection so far. But it is beyond ones understanding as to why ex-SIMI members from Malegaon should cause death and destruction of their own people where they have to live for rest of their lives.

It is also beyond ones understanding that how can police investigate with such one-sided approach? Is it not the duty of police to investigate impartially without pre-judging the issue? Does police pursue only one line of investigation with such determination eliminating all other possibilities. It is totally unfair by any standard of police behaviour. Even Hindus in Malegaon, including the Shiv Sena leader Shri Bhuse maintained that no Muslim from Malegaon can do such a ghastly thing. Yet, the ATS and Malegaon police is pursuing such a course with single minded determination.

Targeting a community
The Prime Minister Shri Manmohan Singh and the Congress Chief Smt. Sonia Gandhi have stated publicly that one community should not be targeted. In case of Mumbai blasts also the police had arrested many Muslims indiscriminately and there was unrest among Muslims in Mumbai also. It was only after repeated protests that the Police Commissioner of Mumbai wrote a letter to prominent Muslims in Mumbai that police is not after Muslims and that if any one is harassed by the police his attention should be drawn. This letter was also just a formal letter and there was hardly any sincerity behind it.

Even the Congress Government, complain Muslim leaders bitterly, seems to be totally indifferent to the woes of Malegaon Muslims and is doing nothing to assure them. The police theory of ex-SIMI members’ involvement seems to be unconvincing and it has so far failed to give cogent reasons for arresting these persons. All the evidence they have is traces of RDX in the soil from the Battery factory where Nurl Huda works. This is hardly convincing evidence. For the rest it relies on the statements given by the accused to the police in custody. These statements might have been extracted under duress and might be retracted in the court.

However, ATS Deputy Inspector General S.K.Jaiswal claimed, that the police were conducting the probe in a fair manner. He also said that “We will gain the faith of the community once we file the chargesheet.� In fact there is great need for police-Muslim dialogue to bridge the gap and police have to take initiative to gain confidence of the Muslims of Malegaon.

The Maharashtra police has not acquitted itself from the charge of one-sided investigation. It hardly did anything to book the culprits named in the Srikrishna Commission Report and closed many cases which now the Supreme Court has asked it to reopen. Not only this, the Congress Government which had promised that it would implement Srikrishna Commission Report within three months of coming to power but did not do anything and turned a blind eye to this demand. In Malegaon too it is hardly winning the confidence of the Muslim community. At the time of election it will make some symbolic gestures and try to woo them again. This approach will not work forever.