Muslims And Election: They Also Serve Who Only Stand
And Wait
Saeed Naqvi
India’s 187
million Muslims deserve a round of applause for the diligent docility with
which they have allowed themselves to be the “other” against which the
divisions within Hindu society have been composed into an ever increasing
expanse of saffron. In geological time there will also be harmony in this
expanse.
By stealth,
the Congress created the platform from which the BJP is now finishing the game
with a flourish. We must not forget, it was Rajiv Gandhi who broke locks of the
Ram Temple, promised Ram Rajya from Ayodhya on the eve of 1989 elections and
allowed the brick laying ceremony for the Ram Temple in total violation of a
court verdict and so on.
The seed of
what we are witnessing today was sowed at the very outset, in 1947. My school
friend, the late Vinod Mehta, as honest an editor as ever entered the once
hallowed profession, put his finger on the nub of the matter. “We have had 800
years of Muslim rule, 200 years of British rule and we have given the Muslims a
brand new country, Pakistan.” He paused. “What would you say if the Hindu sometimes
feels short changed?”
Having known
Vinod as a buddy for 60 years, I knew exactly where Vinod was coming from. The full
import of that conversation would take up a book. Let me come to the point on
which we came to an agreement in the sense that we lowered our voices. If the
Congress was so fiercely opposed to the two-nation theory which stated that
Hindus and Muslims constituted two nations, how did it suddenly accept the
creation of a Muslim Pakistan? Clearly a vast majority of Hindus would feel
cheated because if Pakistan was kosher, so too should Hindustan have been?
An honest
Hindu state would have been better than a dishonest secular one which brought
Muslims down to the lowest possible rungs of the socio economic ladder
reflected in the Sachar Committee report of 2005. It is argued that a Hindu India
would have been an illiberal theocracy. Is Modi supervising a model secular
state? Britain is an Anglican Monarchy which guarantees equal opportunity to
all its citizens, irrespective of colour and creed. Sadiq Khan is the Mayor of
London and Sajid Javid, as Home Secretary, is technically in line to become the
Prime Minister.
Instead of
gliding seamlessly from British Raj to Hindu Raj (Hindustan), Jawaharlal Nehru
insisted on secularism to which his colleagues were opposed. Purushottam Das
Tandon, Babu Rajendra Prasad, Vallabhbhai Patel never shared Nehru’s vision. Indeed,
even Mahatma Gandhi differed with Nehru. “I support Khilafat because that is Mohammad
Ali’s religion.” he said “And he will hold back the Muslim from killing the cow
which is my religion.” Gandhi was a Hindu to the core but he also preached a
secularism that was sustainable in a deeply religious land. His eccentricities,
his tolerance of caste, one would have grappled with, but his would have been a
benign Hinduism. That admirers of his murderers are now in Parliament is mind
boggling.
The boost to
this variety of Hinduism was provided by Prime Minister V.P. Singh when he, for
political reasons, implemented the Mandal Commission report, “reserving”
government jobs for the “Other Backward Castes” (OBCs). The rigid caste system,
exposed to democracy and egalitarianism, was wobbly enough. Mandal Commission,
invited a Hindutva response in the form of a national movement to build the Ram
Temple on the spot where Rama was born. On this spot stood the Babari Masjid –
a situation custom made for lethal communalism.
The first
beneficiary of this politics was BJP’s Atal Behari Vajpayee. As Prime Minister,
he moderated the national mood by accelerating relations with Pakistan, reaching
out to Kashmir and being on talking terms with Muslims. He lost in 2004,
opening the way to Manmohan Singh’s ten years as Prime Minister.
Modi appeared
on the scene when the post 9/11 world was in the grip of wild Islamophobia. Modi
saw advantage in sailing with this current. His hard line communalism fitted
neatly with the global mood. He followed a hard line with Pakistan and Kashmir,
a high tolerance level for Muslims being lynched by mobs for allegedly selling
and eating beef and marrying non Muslims. Brutalities against dalits increased because
they turned to caste leaders opposed to the BJP. Also, their increasing self-esteem
angered castes above them on the scale.
Despite this
state of law and order, dismal economic performance, rural distress, record
unemployment and countless other failures, how did Modi come back to power with
a thumping majority?
In the
communal politics of the 90s, a searing slogan was “Garv se kaho hum Hindu hain”
or “let us proclaim with pride that we are Hindu”. In his very first speech in
Parliament in May 2014, Modi put his finger on the cause for this inferiority
complex. He took upon his shoulders the task of lifting the Hindu “from 1,200
years of ghulami”, which means “serfdom” or “subjugation”. The score of 1,200
years of Muslim and British rule had to be settled to reclaim self-esteem. A national
mood of resentment, valour leading to pride, had to be sustained.
The media was
monopolized for this purpose. This is where crony capitalism comes in. A
personality cult reserved only for Saints or Gods was to be promoted. That is
the key. The Hindu mind elevates what in other societies would be known as “respect”
to the level of “reverence” which leads to deification. Imagine a visage beamed
repeatedly on every channel, of a leader whose relentless incantation is the
following: “your every vote will go into Modi’s account”. This he says by
pointing his finger at himself. People sit around their TV sets as around an
altar or a God, mesmerized.
The Congress,
in its arrogance, played a supporting role by sparing Modi and targeting allies
like SP-BSP in UP, Trinamool Congress in West Bengal and AAP in Delhi exactly
the ones in the thick of battle. Family and friends have set Rahul Gandhi on a
wild goose chase. He is only 48; by the time he is 68, Prime Ministership will
be his for the asking, he is being told. Good luck.
# # # #
Yaar Naqvi, with the memories of our association in professor Bhalla's Antegone when you were an integral part of the team of us Hindustanis and not even a shadow of separateness as Hindus and Muslims was discernible in our midst, it is unbelievable that you have taken this radical stance of communalism . What has made you so bitter and cynical about Hindus? Your cultural roots are deeply embedded in the fertile soil of ganga jamunee tehzeeb. But now in your writings our traditional adab aadaab lehaaz and takalluf are conspicuous in their absence.Have you too become a believer in the two nation theory? I remember clearly that you and me and all our associates in Delhi University admired political leaders like Rafi Ahmad Qidwai, maulana AAzad, Zakir Hussain as much as Mahatma Gandhi or Sardar Patel. It will be a sad day for our sub continent when people of the ilk of you and me will lose faith in Hindustaniyat as a wonderful multi -religious culture. With warm regards VNBALI
ReplyDeleteIt is now very difficult to follow the petulant Sri Sayeed Naqvi. He gets so carried away with his journalistic flourishes and keeps straying off the course so often! But the topic is important.
ReplyDeleteHe states that, "An honest Hindu state would have been better than a dishonest secular one which brought Muslims down to the lowest possible rungs of the socio-economic ladder reflected in the 2005 Sachar Committee report.". But having almost reached there, he is still unhappy. Congress is perhaps the only national party still wedded to the cause of a Secular India as envisaged by the Constituent Assembly in 1950, but he loses no opportunity to condemn it. So, what does he want? He had penned a new "Shiqwa" in his book on the Othering of Muslims.
The Indian Muslim thinkers love to play the victim. It is the easiest though lazy course. Most of their complaints are true but they are mainly of their own making. They expect accommodation from the others but cannot pick up enough courage to oppose their own hardliners. There is no opposition from them to the ideas of Islamic dominance, establishment of a Caliphate and seclusion preached by their leaders. Where is the will to change whatever is out of date and in conflict with the objectives of strengthening the modern states? Modernisation of religious beliefs remains a no-no. Is there any inquiry in the causes of the worldwide Islamophobia? Why it is always everyone else but the Muslims to blame? Why is there no movement to discard all the elements in the religious instructions which oppose universal brotherhood, irrespective of religious beliefs?
This is the season for sulking. The Muslims are sulking in their corner. Rahul Gandhi sulks in his own. The nearly extinct, much maligned, Non-Muslim secular liberal like me is totally dumbfounded!