NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Rediff Shopping

Shop & gift from thousands of products!   Books     Music       Apparel   Jewellery   Flowers   More..      Safe Shopping

The silent voice of Indian Muslims

Sajid Bhombal

'A war waged in the name of Islam does not enthuse co-practitioners of that faith elsewhere in the country, most of whom have anyway borrowed the trait of apathy from the predominant majority around them. If they weren't apathetic to their religion getting besmirched with idiotic calls of jihad, they have managed to conceal it well' -- Saisuresh Sivaswamy.

Recently I received an email from my friend and rediff.com regular Arvind Kumar. The email read: 'Sajid, you may ask me why I talk of Islamic fundamentalism alone. Two reasons -- the topic of the article I am giving feedback to [he was referring to Varsha Bhosle's column 'The Hindu Eunuch', in which she accused me of writing her a note 'as condescending as only a self-sure secularist's can be'], and what the Bajrang Dal goons do, cannot be said to have the sanction of the religion. But jihad has religious sanction'.

I find Arvind's argument, on why he talks of Islamic fundamentalism alone, laughably absurd. Even if I presume, for argument's sake, that jihad, as it is carried out by fundamentalists, has religious sanction, I fail to understand why anyone should talk about Islamic fundamentalism alone. Does this mean the Bajrang Dal type of fundamentalism is okay only because it has no 'religious sanction'?

I can't just shrug aside the apprehension of a person like Arvind about 'mindless jihad'. And I can't accuse Arvind of communalism, because I know he is not communal.

I replied to Arvind, explaining my stand on jihad, and the reply I got was more perplexing. He wrote: 'As for jihad being abused by pucca Muslims, I am sorry to say, they are right. It is you who is clutching at straws trying to find a definition in order to portray religion as positive."

If this is the effect of 'Islamic fundamentalism' on a secular person like my friend Arvind, I can imagine what effect this will have on the minds of 'fundamentalists' trying to project Islam as an evil force.

The fact that people in general have started to believe, however wrongly, that 'mindless violence' carried out in the name of Islam has religious sanction is alarming enough to warrant Muslims coming out and clearing this misunderstanding.

Jihad as carried out by Islamic fundamentalists has no religious sanction. Numerous articles and theories have been written on this by Islamic scholars. Even fundamentalists have, time and again, reiterated that 'violence' has no Islamic sanction ('we condemn this because Islam does not permit us to do this.' -- Salim Hashmi, Hizbul Mujahideen spokesman, on the murder of Amarnath yatris).

Many eminent Muslims have written about the progressive face of Islam and denounced violence. But I agree with Saisuresh that they are not loud enough. It is high time scholars, leaders and persons holding positions of power among Indian Muslims stand up and be counted. We cannot anymore ignore the effects of this dangerous trend of Islamic fundamentalism in India and the subcontinent.

Ayaz Amir, eminent Pakistani columnist, has described the danger of this kind of mindless fundamentalism. He wrote in a recent column: 'Some of the Kashmiri fighters, or at least those who periodically appear in Pakistan, the Mast Guls and Syed Salahuddins, look like dangerous buccaneers. This does their cause no good. Throughout the Islamic world the Shia beard, which is what we see in Lebanon, is closely cropped. The Sunni beard, which is to be seen in Afghanistan and Kashmir, is fuller and more often threatening.' [I am referring to Ayaz Amir only in this context. I do not wholly agree with his writings; in fact I disagree with him more often than not.]

Even though I agree with Sai that Muslims are doing no good by remaining silent, I must say this is a half-truth. Muslims like Dr Rafiq Zakaria, an eminent scholar and author of many books on Islam and Indian Muslims, has openly come out against Pakistani terrorism. He also represented India in the United Nations General Assembly in 1965 where he superbly countered Pakistani propaganda of Islam being in danger here.

The Muslim intelligentsia has always denounced violence. Muslims journalists like M J Akbar or Saeed Naqvi are as aggressive in condemning so-called 'Islamic terrorism' as their Hindu counterparts.

Mid-Day, the English newspaper owned by a Muslim family, is secular to the core and never spares any kind of terrorism or violence. The Urdu press is equally concerned about growing terrorism. Muslims are as much concerned about 'idiotic calls to jihad' as Hindus are. Muslim soldiers are fighting on the borders, along with soldiers of other religions, the violent forces that threaten India.

But the Indian media, it seems, has different attitudes for different kinds of 'violence'. While an act of violence carried out by a Hindu organisation is always reported as an act carried out by the Bajrang Dal or Shiv Sena [as the case may be], an act of violence carried out by some Muslim organisation is always termed an incident of 'Islamic terrorism'.

This I find amusing, even comical. This prejudice is seen even in social issues. Recently, a headline in The Asian Age read: 'Muslims protest Mamta's burka'. It was in reference to some protest voiced by a small Muslim League section in Bombay, so why was it attributed to me, an Indian Muslim, who does not care what Mamta Kurkarni does or does not wear? What did this headline mean? Have you seen any newspaper headline saying, 'Hindus vandalise Deepa Mehta's sets'? No, it is always the VHP or Bajrang Dal that is involved. [I feel sorry for Mamta Kulkarni, though. Poor girl, she has been dragged to court for not wearing anything. And when she completely covers herself, people still find fault with her!]

In the context of Pakistan, one point is always missed. Pakistan's problem is not Indian Hindus, but Indian Muslims. A 'Hinduised' India is of no interest to Pakistan. Pakistan's leaders are fighting for a cause, a reason that will validate the very existence of Pakistan. The success or wellbeing of Indian Muslims is never in Pakistan's interest. If Indian Muslims are successful, the Pakistani leaders have a problem because that throws up questions they will never be comfortable answering.

Pakistan, by compulsion, cannot think of the wellbeing of Indian Muslims. If Pakistanis had concern for Islam and Indian Muslims, they would never have disturbed Kashmir. Because Kashmir is vital for India's secularism in general and Indian Muslims in particular.

If Pakistan had any 'genuine' interest in Islam, it would have realised that disturbing Kashmir would have an adverse effect on Indian Muslims, who are far more numerous than the Muslims in Pakistan and Bangladesh combined. This is reason enough to understand that Pakistan's evil design in Kashmir has nothing to do with Islam; its leaders are merely using Islam as a tool for their political existence.

Why should any anti-India development in Kashmir have an adverse effect on Indian Muslims elsewhere? I know I have touched a very sensitive issue here, which needs tremendous maturity to handle. Being an amateur writer, I cannot obviously claim to have the required maturity to handle this topic, so I will turn to Dr Rafiq Zakaria again.

In his book, The Widening Divide (Viking Penguin India, 1995), Dr Zakaria refers to a statement of then Indian foreign minister Dinesh Singh, reminding the Organisation of Islamic Conference that it should realise that 'India has the second largest Muslim population in the world. And it [the OIC] shouldn't do anything which may affect Muslims here [in India]. How can it fully accept Pakistan's contention that Kashmir is a religious problem? Because, if Muslims cannot stay in India, then where will 120 million of them go? All Islamic countries, I think, understand that India is not punishing Muslims. On some issues they [the OIC] may get together to support Pakistan. But they understand that India cannot be made a target. Indian Muslims will not like it either. They will face a fearsome risk'.

Syed Shahabuddin responded to Dinesh Singh in his own way (Muslim India, June 1994): 'It appears that Dinesh Singh looks upon Muslim Indians as hostage for the good behaviour of Muslim Kashmiris. Muslim Indians are not a homogeneous or a monolithic group. In any case, Muslim Indians have no means to influence the Muslim Kashmiris. Yet, they have been threatened, by implication, with expulsion and with fearsome punishment, if Muslim Kashmiris refuse to stay in India. This is neither the language of secularism nor democracy, but the idiom of oppression and chauvinism. The statement that India is not punishing the Muslims is a clear implication that should the Muslim Kashmiris opt out, Muslim Indians are liable to be punished. This amounts to incitement to genocide'.

A perfect argument. True, why should I, an Indian Maharashtrian Muslim, be considered a 'hostage for the good behaviour of Kashmiri Muslims?' I wish this argument were as simple as that. The fact is, it is not. Dr Zakaria summed it up very well in his book. In response to Shahabuddin's argument he writes: 'Shahabuddin took Dinesh Singh to task for speaking the truth. The truth, however, needs to be faced; in case Kashmir is lost, the position of Indian Muslims would become most precarious. It is not a question of Dinesh Singh, or any minister or even the prime minister, or of what they think, say or do; it is what reaction this loss will produce on ordinary Hindus who are neither angels nor ideal democrats or secularists. They will be roused to uncontrolled frenzy by the protagonists of Hindutva and in all likelihood commit the worst genocide against poor and helpless Indian Muslims. The bravado of Shahabuddin and his ilk will not save them. Did they, despite their proclamations, succeed in protecting the Babri Masjid?'

Saeed Naqvi, to give another example of the Indian Muslim view on Kashmir, had this to say on Kashmir: 'Pakistanis are ignorant of what ought to be an Indian incantation: Indian secularism protects, among a billion others, the world's second largest Muslim population and Kashmir will have to be addressed in such a way that this structure is not impaired.' (The Indian Express, February 26, 1999).

But one point Shahabuddin made needs serious consideration. It is a valid point when he says Indian Muslims have no means to influence Kashmiri Muslims.

Even Rafiq Zakaria makes the same point in his book: 'Had they [the Kashmiri Muslims] had any real contact with Indian Muslims, the situation might have been different. In the process, Indian Muslims are being made, wittingly or unwittingly, 'hostages' in India's conflict between Pakistan on the question of Kashmir; they are damned by Pakistanis and suspected by Indians."

Simple logic tells us that Pakistan's claim on Kashmir based on religious ground is hollow. If Muslim Kashmir cannot stay in India, then how can world's second largest Muslim population stay in India? [The Muslim population in the valley is less than 7 per cent of India's total Muslim population.]

So it is clear that Indian Muslims must play an active role in Kashmiri matters. But are Indian Muslim leaders alone to be blamed for their passivity towards Kashmiri Muslims?

Responding to one such question from M V Kamath, the eminent columnist, Dr Zakaria writes: 'May I ask Kamath, in return, whether India has ever bothered to involve Indian Muslims in Kashmir's affairs; all these years they have been kept at arm's length. On several occasions, it has been suggested that one of their leaders be sent as governor of Kashmir to smoothen the ruffled feelings of the people of the state; but even that was pooh-poohed'.

Dr Zakaria writes further: 'The religious ground must be cut by a religious sword; it cannot be cut with a secular knife.' But when he was asked to represent India in the United Nations in 1965, he informs that it was difficult for him to convince the government to use this simple logic, even though he was convinced that the Muslim angle was the best to counter Pakistan's hate-India campaign.

Dr Zakaria did convince Prime Minister Lal Bahadur Shastri. The speech he gave in the UN General Assembly on October 15, 1965, brings home the Muslim angle superbly and exposes Pakistan's hollow claim over Kashmir based on religion.

Dr Zakaria argued India's case on behalf of Indian Muslims. He ended his speech with these words: "It was the Prophet of Islam who said 'O Lord! Lord of my life and of everything in the universe; I affirm that all human beings are brothers unto one another'. Thus, in Islam, on which Pakistan bases its claim to Kashmir, there is no room for the 'two-nation' theory, which is a blot on the history of mankind. Why do not the rulers of Pakistan, which parades itself as an Islamic State, remodel the lives of their citizens on the basis of this profound truth uttered by the Prophet instead of trying to disrupt our society?"

In Dr Zakaria's words: 'The speech had the desired effect; Bhutto shrieked that I was a traitor to the Muslim cause. The Saudi Arabian ambassador walked out in protest. But other Muslim delegates were sympathetic; they did not want to jeopardise the positions of their co-religionists in India. They were realistic enough not to be duped by Pakistan's slogan of 'Islam in danger'; they could not ignore the existence of more than 50 million Muslims [then]. In his frustration Bhutto later stormed out of the Security Council, gesticulating and shouting, 'Indian dogs, go back.' Indians remained, Pakistanis went out. They knew that their game was up.'

This was the effect of using the Muslim angle then. I have no doubt that, with a proper strategy, this is one angle that will expose Pakistan's evil designs even now. An articulate strategy on this line should be created. A strategy along this line will have a stronger effect than even US intervention.

In summary, my case is very simple. It is a fact that Kashmir is vital for Indian secularism. It is also a fact that Indian Muslims should play a vital role in Kashmir's matters. And it is also a fact that they are aware of it.

But in all these years, our government has been talking in a very 'confused' manner on Kashmir. There seems to be no clear policy. Take the recent development. The government wants to talk to the Hizb. But do we know what they are going to talk about? Does the government itself know? The Hizb and other militant organisations have given a 'religious' colour to their 'cause'. It would have been perfect if the government, as a matter of policy, involved Muslim leaders in the talks.

Wouldn't it have been perfect if the government had asked someone like Dr Zakaria to talk to the Hizb or other militant groups?

So, in a scenario where the government and those in charge of policy do not involve Indian Muslims, what can Muslims, especially common Muslims, do? I fail to understand what exactly is expected of Indian Muslims every time a national crisis emerges.

A note on Sai's observation of common Indians' (both Hindu and Muslim) apathy to the 'mindless' violence going around. It is not that people are not concerned; there is every reason for them to be. But people do not see any 'political will' on the part of our ruling elite to end the spate of violence across the country. Bombay's mind-numbing communal violence of 1992-93 has now been reduced to a comedy between Chhagan Bhujbal and Bal Thackeray. The serial bomb blasts case is caught in a legal web. Kashmir has been burning for a decade now, but there has been no concrete action by any government. In the absence of 'political will', there is nothing a common man can do.

Let me end this with a quote from Dr Zakaria's UN speech, which is the voice, silent perhaps, but still the voice of the Indian Muslim:

'Let me make it quite clear now that we shall resist every threat to the foundation of our secular State. Let me make it clear on behalf of the 50 million Muslims of India to whom I have the privilege to belong that we shall fight to the last man any move to disturb the non-communal character of our Republic'.

The Guest Columns

Back to top

E-mail your article

Tell us what you think of this report