SEPARATE MUSLIM PARTY NOT NEEDED
December 1-15, 2000
by Asghar Ali Engineer
The newly appointed Shahi Imam of Delhi's Jama Masjid Syed Ahmad Bukhari has announced recently that he will soon launch a separate Muslim party. He, while making this announcement, said that he will play direct role in setting up this political party for Muslims and the poor and the oppressed to ensure that the "lost rights of the minorities" are regained. He also said that his priority would be to give shape to this political party. He is also planning to call a meeting of various Muslim leaders either in November or after Ramadan in January, 2001.
The Imam has opened a direct line of communication with the Kashmiri leaders of the All Parties Hurriyyat Conference. There was prompt response from chairman of the Hurriyat Conference Mir Waiz who is likely to attend the meeting to be convened by Ahmed Bukhari. The Shahi Imam told a news paper that "We did not accept Jinnah as our leader, we recognised only Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, V.P.Singh and others, but what have we got in return: only empty slogans and hollow promises". It is for this reason, he said that we are forced to form our own political party.
It is, to say the least, a dangerous line of argument. Some ambitious political leaders themselves use grievances of minorities as empty slogans to grab political power. Ahmed Bukhari's own father, the then Shahi Imam Abdullah Bukhari became notorious for exploiting emotional issues to enhance his own political influence. In fact the then Shahi Imam and other Muslim leaders of his ilk brought disaster on innocent Muslims through their emotional outpourings and exploitation of intense emotional issues. And it is for this reason that these leaders were totally marginalised. It would not be wrong to maintain - and many Muslim intellectuals do - that it was Abdullah Bukhari and his un-thought of emotional outpourings responsible for strengthening of the Sangh Parivar and to an extent for demolition of Babri Masjid.
These so called elite leaders of minorities have no mass base among the minorities and have no genuine support from them except for occasional emotional upsurge and these leaders try to use the genuine grievances of minorities for their own ends. The whole history since nineteenth century is full of such instances. It is easier for such leaders to exploit emotional issues as powerless, deprived and exploited minorities tend to be poor and illiterate. They, for the same reason, also tend to be quite emotional. It is as much true of dalits and backwards as Muslims in India. Their leaders always tend to use emotional discourse and that too in hyperbolic language.
The case of Jinnah is also a good example. Jinnah, himself a highly educated shrewd leader made use of poor Muslims' grievances for either his personal politics or for the elite class of Muslims for whose benefit he ultimately created Pakistan. Pakistan did not solve any problem as far as common Muslims are concerned. They are suffering even more in Pakistan today. While Jinnah used the slogan 'all Muslims unite' he in fact only succeeded in dividing them initially into two and later into three countries. And he created more complex problems for Indian Muslims, which they are yet to overcome. Thus it will be seen that politics of separatism on one hand, and, emotional hyperbole, on the other, does not solve any problem and, on the contrary, it aggravates them.
In a pluralist society like India separatism never pays. We would also like to emphasise here that separatism should not be ascribed to a religion as such as many scholars tend to do. For example, many scholars even today hold Islam responsible for creation of Pakistan. In fact it was politics of Jinnah and the Muslim elite classes which was responsible for division of the country. If Jinnah had been sober and wiser he could have bargained for more power to the minorities rather than demanding a separate country. But certain political demands have their own dynamics and go beyond the control of politicians once they formulate. Jinnah also became victim of his own political demands. It is true that in the given conditions today formation of a separate Muslim party would not result in another division.
There are no Muslim elite left any more in India and poorer and exploited masses are hardly interested in a separate nationhood. Secondly, the Muslims of the subcontinent have already paid a heavy price for partition and they would not opt for any such solution under any circumstances. The Muslims of U.P. and Bihar who thought in 1947 that Pakistan will be a solution, themselves are repenting and the MQM leader Altaf Husain has characterised creation of Pakistan a mistake. Even though there can be no such danger, yet a separate Muslim party is not only a no solution but is also highly undesirable.
India is a pluralist country with bewildering diversity. Its strength lies in its pluralism and diversity. In fact even the Western countries which tended to be quite monolithic are fast becoming pluralistic and diverse and they have accepted cultural and religious plurality. In such a society if every religious minority or ethnic group forms its own parties to solve its grievances there will be nothing but atomisation of political system and welter and confusion. We are already experiencing this in India to some extent. The present coalition at the Centre consists of 23 parties. Though it is true two party system cannot work in India with its immense diversity, too many small parties are also not good for its political health.
Secularism and pluralism being foundational stone of our political philosophy religion-based parties should not be encouraged in any case, be they then Hindutva parties or parties based on any religion. Religion based parties are very negation of our political system. Such parties rather than solving our grievances will only aggravate them. If minorities form religion based parties it will provide justification for majority community to form a religion -based party. In fact today our biggest problem is aggressive politics of the Sangh Parivar. Its formation has seriously weakened our secularism. The minorities are suffering its consequences. In such circumstances if the leaders of the largest minority form a religion-based party it will be no less than an unmitigated disaster. In fact the Sangh Parivar thrives on hate politics against Muslims and Christians and this hate politics will only intensify if any new Muslim party is formed.
This is not to say there are no genuine Muslim grievances. There are. However, their solution does not warrant formation of any new party. New party will, at best, only provide another platform for unscrupulous politicians to bargain for positions of power rather than resolve these grievances. The record of minority leaders so far is clear proof of this. If the existing political parties have not solved the problems afflicting Muslims, Muslim leaders are as much to blame for this as these parties themselves. These so-called minority leaders themselves raise slogans of Muslim grievances in order to solve their own personal grievances rather than those of the Muslims. The record of the then Shahi Imam is quite inglorious in this respect. His politics was based only on his personal ambitions for which many Muslims had to die in ensuing riots. Now his son Ahmed Bukhari is trying to re-emerge on Muslim political scene by exploiting these Muslim grievances.
Today it will also be a mistake to assume that throughout India Muslims have uniform interests and that they are a homogeneous mass. The Muslim League also made this mistaken assumption before partition. There are intra-religious differences among the Muslims on one hand, and, intra-regional and intra-cultural, on the other hand. If Ahmed Bukhari forms a Muslim party it will be a north centred Muslim party and the Muslims of South, particularly those of Kerala and Tamilnadu will be quite cold towards it. Even in the North East the Asamese or Manipuri Muslims for that matter will cold-shoulder it. The Muslims of Jammu and Kashmir have their own specific problems. The Kashmiri identity is as important for the Muslims of Kashmir as their religious identity. To ignore these aspects is to live in a fool's world. Whose interests then Mr. Bukhari's party will represent then?
Mr.Ahmed Bukhari, if he is genuine in his intent to resolve Muslims' problems he should play the role of Sir Syed rather than that of Jinnah. Today Muslims, particularly in the North, are poor and illiterate. There are some schemes available for economic and educational uplift of minorities. The government bureaucrats are rather reluctant to implement these schemes with a sense of commitment for various reasons including corruption, lethargy and prejudice. And, may be these schemes are not adequate to fulfil the needs of Muslims. What is needed is to create awareness of these schemes among the poorer and illiterate Muslims and also to put pressure on the government through political parties and members of the Parliament to increase budget allocations. Agreed, it is not easy. But it is far better than forming another political party. Formation of such a party, even if it goes smoothly will only ensure some parliamentary seats or ministerial births for a few Muslim leaders. What about the Muslim masses? Will they remain high and dry?
In the socio-economic arena what is needed for Muslims is to widen educational and employment base, and in political arena what is needed is to align with and win support of centrist and left of the centre parties. It is true that record of centrist parties is not some thing to be proud of in this respect but then the record of Muslim leaders negotiating with these parties is equally poor. These leaders should give priority to interests of Muslim masses than those of their own in negotiations with these parties. It will certainly make a great difference. Sincere commitment to secularism and the genuine cause of minorities can achieve much in its own ground through democratic polity.