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