The provocation for writing this article was some recent comments by Pakistanis accusing the Indian Muslims of being apologetic to other Indians by speaking out against Pakistan. My intention is to explore whether it is apologetics or it is a matter of the heart when the Indian Muslim speaks on these matters.
Out of some good articles on understandingpakistan.com one of the articles by Athar Osama mentioned “Under the plan of India’s Independence, Pakistan came into being on August 14, 1947 as the only country in the world established to safeguard the interests of a religious community.
This perhaps sums the whole basis on which the idea of Pakistan was pursued and achieved. I, an Indian Muslim, who was born much after partition and who is completely detached of the politics that was at that time, wants to assess that from the eyes of an Indian Muslim.
This article has nothing to do with the general Pakistani people. The Pakistanis whom I have met have mostly been very decent and some of the most courteous people. We are the same blood, similar cultures, same languages, same cuisines and similar dress. The prior statement is not from an Indian Muslim but from an Indian. If an Indian can be most closely identified with any other people in the whole world outside India it will be either Pakistan or Bangladesh – whether it be skin, language, cuisine, culture, music, arts or many other things.
This is also not an analysis of history as to what happened prior to the partition. I am too detached from the social and political conditions at that time to comment on them intellectually. This is just an analysis of the end results. The way an Indian Muslim looks at the things as they stand now. It has nothing to do with the people of Pakistan but it is to do either with the administration or the idea of Pakistan.
In India, across the Indian Muslim community it is widely accepted now that the partition of India was the biggest blunder that happened. Instead of safeguarding the interests of the Indian Muslims it reduced the ones who continued to live in India to a position of significantly reduced importance. It impacted the most those who needed the biggest safeguards, the poorest of the poor. A significant portion of the educated cream of the Indian Muslim community migrated to Pakistan; some say they chickened out when the push came to shove. Most of the remaining Muslims in India were poor who would be just fighting to make their two ends meet.
The first silver lining in this was that India was formed as a secular and democratic state. The constitution of India recognized that every citizen will be absolutely equal in his rights and will be free to profess, practice and propagate his religion. The goals were set in the clearest way and the struggle was to achieve the goal and not about the goal itself. It has often been a struggle for the Indian Muslims no doubt but the question has not been the constitution but it has been about upholding the spirit of the constitution. The same Nehru who is often held responsible in Pakistan for the inflexibility fought to uphold the secular fabric of India.
The second is the demographics of the country. India is a unique country, one of its kind. It is like Western Europe put together in a single country. That is true whether you compare it in size, population, languages, cultures, cuisines, dress, habits and many other things. This fact itself makes it a land of huge diversity and contradictions unlike any other place in the world. This structure itself demands that people of different backgrounds have different needs in their daily lives. The result of that is the number of players that have emerged in the Indian political structure. The identities are not Hindu and Muslim so much as the Muslim League would have thought or the BJP wants.
The result of this diversity has been that even after unleashing its whole might and propaganda machinery through RSS its political offshoot the BJP, at its zenith, could never get more than 25% of the votes. It is only in Gujarat that the worst fears of the Muslims have come true. Other than many of the leaders of BJP no political party questions the Muslims about their existential and cultural position. Many political parties acted as ‘messiah’ of the Muslims and paid just lip service yet perhaps no other party other than the exception of BJP pursued harming the interests of the Muslims.
The response of the Indian Muslims has been as true citizens. The overwhelming majority of them took the path of the ballot and followed all the democratic means at their disposal. This is the reason that there were so few supporting political parties to BJP and it was able to put together NDA only when it toned down its rhetoric and agenda. When Gujarat 2002 happened and later NDA lost in the general elections some of the supporting parties found it tough to remain onboard.
As the generation that lived through or was close to the years of partition is getting replaced by those who are completely detached from it a new Indian Muslim identity is emerging. When the Indian economy was sluggish and the jobs were few, it was not meritocracy alone that was basis of governmental jobs and discrimination was easy. But now as the economy is booming and every corporation or entrepreneur wants the best hand to work for them, it is just about who has the skills to get the job done. This is evident from the recent Sachar Panel report where though Muslims are pathetically under-represented in all segments yet their best representation comes in the flagship industry of India, the IT and ITES industry.
The goals of Muslims in India are clearly cut out; safety of life and property, uprooting poverty in the community, increasing literacy and getting to the fore-front of the administrative and economic leadership of India. One of the biggest roadblocks to these is the prejudices, stereotypes and discrimination that the lowest rung of the society face. This is not because of any of the democratic institutions of the country but solely because of the people who fill them. The constitution safeguards the interests and the highest level of judiciary safeguards the interests. If the perpetrators of the Mumbai or Gujarat riots do not see the door of justice it is because of the people who shun their constitutional responsibilities.
Indian Muslims have successfully survived in India. The future only looks better. The Two Nation Theory has been falsified. India and Pakistan keep vying with each other over who has more Muslims! So what has been the contribution of Pakistan in safeguarding the Indian Muslims after the biggest blunder that had already happened in partition? In one single word: Negative. Why negative and why not zero? Because as I argue below it is negative.
The worst thing that can happen to the Indian Muslims is adding fuel to the propaganda machinery of the right wing. While Indian Muslims have their own weaknesses and moles that are responsible for this but the focus here is only on Pakistan’s contribution.
Firstly, by opposing India being a member of the Organization of Islamic Countries (OIC). In 1969, when OIC was formed and India lobbied to be included as it had the third largest Muslim population in the world Pakistan successfully lobbied against it. Pakistan looked at its strategic self-interests and not anything about safeguarding the Indian Muslims otherwise it was a significant move on the part of India to have made that move to be included in the organization as an Islamic country! If Gabon with just 10% Muslims (150,000 Muslim citizens) can be a member, it is a mockery that India with 150 million Muslims and till very recently having the second largest Muslim population on the planet is denied that status. If India was denied significant position vis a vis Muslim countries there was little incentive for her to put the strong feet of her Muslim cultural identity forward and sustain it.
Secondly, the most contentious issue of the way we look at history. The propaganda machinery of the Indian right wing does a great job in picking up all the opinions, lies and rumors against Muslim rulers and paint a picture that the presence of Muslims in India has been the biggest damage and tragedy to the Indian civilization. Whereas invaders like Ghauri and Ghaznavi are understandably condemned even the Mughals who lived in India as their own home are termed as foreigners. While Indian Muslims look at the past as a syncretic culture of great tolerance the Pakistani reading of history is music to the ears of the right wing in India. When Pakistan builds its missile programme it names these weapons as Ghauri, Ghaznavi and Babur as instruments to attack India. This just reiterates the point to every Indian listening to them and reinforcing the deep rooted prejudices.
It matters little to both the sides on this reading of history – of Hindus pitted against Muslims in the medieval ages – that Babur defeated a Muslim Ibrahim Lodhi at Delhi’s throne, Ghauri defeated Prithvi Raj’s army which was led by a Muslim and Ghaznavi had one of his top generals who was a Hindu named Tilak. It also matters little in this reading of history that when Akbar and Maharana Pratap fought at Haldighati then Akbar’s army was led by a Hindu Raja Man Singh and Maharana Pratap’s army was led by a Muslim Hakim Khan Suri. It also matters little in this reading that the Sikh Guru Arjan Dev who was executed by Aurangzeb had the foundation stone of Golden Temple laid by Mian Mir a sufi saint and had included so many sufi songs in the Sikh holy book Guru Granth Sahib. Or that Shivaji who fought with Aurangzeb had a Pathan unit and one of his most trusted aides was Didi Ibrahim, a Muslim and that Aurangzeb sent Raja Jaisingh, a Hindu to fight him. Or that when Babur defeated Rana Sanga at Panipat the latter’s army had thousands of Muslim soldiers.
Thirdly, it is the treatment in Pakistan to its minorities. The fuel to the Sangh Parivar is that while the Muslim percentage in India has marginally increased since partition that of Hindus in Pakistan has significantly reduced and they are widely discriminated against at all levels. They say that if Hindu discrimination is so deep in Pakistan then why should Muslims of India claim anything better?
The Two Nation Theory had no theological base. That is the reason that the Ulama were so much against the partition. The Prophet from his example of Madina showed a model of co-existence, where his city included the Muslims, Jews and Pagans as citizens of a rudimentary state. The two nation theory was propounded just from a social perspective. The Muslim League leaders got stuck in talking with a few on the opposite side and took them to be India. It was sad that they could not figure out that in a democracy while Muslims, quite justifiably, would not have had an upper hand so would any other section, as India is incredibly diverse by its very nature.
I don’t know about what the social context was in which partition happened but I now know for sure that the leaders who pursued it were shortsighted. Pakistan formed as an ‘Islamic’ country refused to acknowledge the rights of Bangla Muslims and the country split within 25 years. In its sixty years of existence it has been under military rule for a significant portion. The independent presence of judiciary is so impacted that its most famous Prime Ministers are either barred from entering their own country or hanged. A couple of weeks back Dina Wadia (daughter of Jinnah) wanted to spend her last days in Jinnah House in Bombay and not at any place in Pakistan. If today 13% Muslims can impact the political scene in India then definitely about 35% could have never been taken for a ride.
But today let us have bygones be bygones. India needs a strong Pakistan; not as an enemy but as a friendly neighbor. A neighbor that works with India in creating a South Asian super zone similar to the Euro Zone, by looking in the syncretic past and not by picking up twisted irritants from the past. The solution is not by putting Pakistan in contrast to India in everything particularly in identity but in drawing inspiration from the mutual past. Having multi billion dollar budgets to safeguard the borders in countries where still hundreds of millions of its citizens earn less than dollar a day is no way justifiable. Working on projects of recreating national boundaries will not solve anything as we have seen. But peace and respect among the largest ethnic population on the face of the earth can create wonders. It will make life easier for India’s Muslims too as the propaganda machinery of the Sangh Parivar will have lesser fuel to add to the fire.
@ Iconoclast,
I am game for it. Post the link and I will subscribe
YLH,
How do you define Pakistan sovereignity? When Musharraf took over was it in the state of sovereignty? If not, then can you tell me ou of 60 years how many years was Pakistan sovereign? Sorry to say it is far from being one..
Anyways, frankly speaking, in a secular country, I do not see any role played by religious leaders… unless you are telling me that Pakistan is run by mullahs only and secular people like you have no say in governance!! Why do you think mullahs would be so much against secular country idea? Please throw some light on it.
but let me ask you – are you up for it? If not, why not? If yes, what are your views?
Like I said- I am NOT up for it. I was born a Pakistani … and to me India is a foreign country.
Let’s not confuse issues… Pakistan’s problems are not unique… they are similar in all Muslim majority countries but I have faith that Pakistan will ultimately emerge as a Muslim majority version of your country India- maybe even a better one.
YLH,
You are entitled to your views (and spin) on Direct Action Day and it may even be shared by some writers in the west. But by no means is it a ‘generally accepted view’ amongst historians in the west. And by no means was the Direct Action Day violence restricted to Calcutta alone – though it was the most horrific instance.
There are many eyewitness accounts of that time and your attempt to paint Jinnah and the Muslim League as angels is not new to you, but has little credibility. Just repeating it again and again (along with your customary attempt to paint Gandhi as the greatest villain born on earth) will not change the fact that Jinnah was a politician through and through – one who had his negative qualities along with the positive. Just like many other contemporaries of his.
As to reunification, I don’t think there is any widespread support for it in India either – except some loonies in the right wing and some perhaps well-meaning but naive folks who don’t understand the strong feeling against any suggestion of this kind amongst many Pakistanis. My view on that is pragmatic – we have problems of our own to deal with, why would we want to add the most problematic country in the world and make its problems our own. And of course, if Pakistanis don’t want reunification (and that is what I see from talking to most of my Pakistani friends), what purpose is served by making such suggestions? Good luck to Pakistan and hope it can get to a stage where this tag of a problem state no longer applies. If it can live in peace with itself and its neighbors, everybody will be happy.
NiceGuy,
It’s fairly simple. One goes to blogger.com & starts a blog. I have some experience, give me some time to pull myself away from less important issues.
Milind, GREAT!
YLH,
Your patriotism is commendable. It’s a distant dream though. If you have to dream distant dreams, can you & I not become one nation & be patriotic towards it?
Girish,
Do you remember when advani recently tried to paint jinnah as an angel?
Also, this reunification is not a problem really. In earlier times, the spread of both the Mauryan Empire & the Mughal Empire included the countries now knows as India & Pak. What’s the issue now man?
1conoclast,
Since when did you become a devotee of Advani, to treat his word as gospel?
And BTW, it is not surprising that Advani finds Jinnah to be an angel, considering how similar they are to each other. Both personally liberal, even irreligious to the extent of being virtual atheists. Both personally incorruptible. Both making legitimate points against the wishy-washy, albeit well-meaning, pursuit of “secularism” by their main political opponents. But both going beyond this legitimate criticism to actions that caused the widening of the gulf between communities and incalculable suffering to large numbers of people.
And to add a coincidence to the comparison, Jinnah was a Gujarati who made Sindh his adopted home, while Advani was a Sindhi who made Gujarat his adopted home (his constituency is Gandhinagar).
On a different note, most Pakistanis consider suggestions of reunification as an assault on their separateness and their right to nationhood. Therefore, the suggestion offends them and achieves no purpose in any case, since it is an impossible outcome now. Not just is there hostility to the idea in Pakistan itself, most of India would be opposed to the idea too. Why would we want to add to our already formidable problems, by merging with Pakistan? Let’s be friendly with them, but there is no productive purpose served by discussing reunification.
To add to my comments, let’s first achieve unification within our own country. Let’s get rid of the hatred between communities, the conflict between castes. Let’s stop the battle between the classes. Let’s move our vast numbers of desperately poor out of poverty and educate every child born in the country. These are bigger issues to worry about and will make a bigger impact on the lives of our people than reunification with Pakistan. In the future, maybe nationhood will mean for very little in any case, (if and) when the world moves towards an EU-like situation. In the EU, nations exist and people are proud of them, even fiercely so. But borders are irrelevant for many things that affect people’s lives. Such a future for India and Pakistan and other countries around us is more likely (and perhaps more beneficial too) than political reunification.
@Girish,
I agree with you. India has far too many issues to resolve for it to afford religious tangles. Yes, we very much need to have a casteless society, across communities (Hindus are NOT the only people who practice a caste system, although they are much maligned for it)
Reunification with Pakistan is out of the question. It would become a liability.
EU has many countries which are economically power houses and have a lot to offer each other. An EU like system in Indian subcontinent will be viable when India becomes a powerhouse. I recently was reading blog diaries from people in Burma and even our Arunachal Pradesh. People were praising China for their vast growth and their neat clean cities. When India does move towards a stronger infrastructure the next thing is to improve our attitudes. All these things are a far cry now. When we do achieve these things I believe Pakistanis , Bangladeshis or even Afghanis(Mauryan and Mughals were here too and Sher Shah Suri and many afghans considered themselves Indians) or Burma will find that let us become an South Asian Union. Infact China is also welcome. We can learn from their disciplined approach. Enmities dont lead us anywhere.
I hope Pakistanis and Indians first realise that enough of Fighting over Kashmir. And kashmiris realise that they are no less Indians. Probably let us experiment something in Kashmir. And continue to make India stronger. At these points a union will be possible. But Maybe not a single nation or maybe who knows. Only Allah knows his ways. But yes right now Pakistanis right from birth see India as a enemy nation. This needs to change first.
اس سلأم اليكم يأ مسلمين
To All Muslims here:
I would request all (Indian) Muslims to stop thinking in terms of Indian Muslims or Pakistani Muslims, instead think of as one Muslim Ummah. Our Prophet Mohammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم) when ever he addressed muslims, he did not address them as “Arabs” or “Africans” or by any other nationality, he only referred them as Muslims. He never linked any statehood or ethnicity with muslims.
So our problems today stem from the fact that we have forgotten what Allah and his Prophet did.
Whereas if you would consider the American Jewish population, they actively lobby for pro-israel policies, and there political decisions are based on lobbying for Israel.
When the Jewish populace of America supports Israel, the muslims from india are rebuked for doing the same.
و سلأم اليكم
There are Indian Muslims who support Israel?? I hear many Muslims talk about the Great Satan and Zionist conspiracy, but this is the first time I’m hearing about Muslims from India supporting Israel. Or was that a mistake?
@yaseen,
The biggest problem in the Ummah today is the difference between practice and precept. Whereas the Holy Prophet (SAWA) never distinguished races and nationalities, just look at the linguistic and ethnic divides in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The movement for unity has to be first achieved WITHIN THE UMMAH, else whom will the rest of the world treat as speaking for the Muslims?
What i Meant is that while the Jewish populace lobbies for Israel no one raises and eye brow.
But if the Muslims of India lobby for any muslim country, they would be termed as traitors.
And Yes no doubt, Israel is an illegitimate state formed by the expulsion of the native palestanian population.
And BTW i don’t think you and other would ever understand our sensibilities neither i demand that you understand us. My message was purely for the muslims of this forum and India
@Yaseen
Forgive me for interfering and I know very little about Islam.
Do you think Prophet Muhammad mean that you should feel pain of Muslim only and not of ANY human being? Dude, pain is pain – it goes beyond what your faith is.
Vedas says ‘Vasudaiva Kutumbakam’ which means ‘The entire world is a single huge family’! They don’t differentiate between people of this religion or that religion, entire Earth is a single family!
The vedas also say ‘Sarve Jana Sukhino Bhavantu’ which means ‘May all the people live happily’. Again here all humans are considered equal, there is no differentiation.
What kind of blog should we make now?
I would request to all human beings (including hindus and muslims) – to stop thinking in terms of Hindu human or Muslim human, instead think of as one large Family of the world. Do not create subset but be bonded by the humanity.
Although I agree with you – we should not have a separate blogs for Indian Muslims and Indian Hindus.. how about just one blog for all Indians?
Not sure if you are Indian, but you are still welcome as long as you don’t divide, i mean, by trying to unite in the name of religion
Girish…
I’m hardly a devotee of advani. And I am perplexed as to how you’re construing my passing reference to his statements as Gospel……???
jinnah & advani similar??? Only in my contempt for both!
advani LIBERAL??? IRRELIGIOUS??? VIRTUAL ATHEIST??? LOLOLOLOL!!!
Is THAT why he keeps fighting for the Ram Mandir & the Ram Sethu? Is that why he goes on national TV proclaiming that the Ram Sethu fiasco is against “Hindu interests”?
Look, if you want to make a point, do so, but do so without resorting to shameless LIES!!!
Personally incorruptable, huh? Is that why the rss top brass called his praise of jinnah an attempt at “chhavi sudhaar”? A deviation from earlier political stances?
How about morally corrupt? Does that find favour with you?
advani’s earlier constituency was Delhi, which he abandoned after Rajesh Khanna entered the fray & lost only by a margin of a few votes. addu had panicked in advance & contested from Gandhinagar additionally. He then retained the Gandhinagar seat & gave up the Delhi seat which Rajesh Khanna won handsomely. Till today Delhi has not forgiven him for his “betrayal”.
That is the difference my friend between facts & rumour. Watch & learn.
Millind,
There were quite a few West Germans who believed that reunification would be a liability on account of East Germany. See where they are now.
1conoclost,
You once again display your personal ignorance about issues and additionally complete ignorance of my stand on issues. I have been here on this blog many years longer than you and I don’t need to prove my secular credentials to anybody.
That Advani is personally close to being irreligious is pretty well known. He himself has stated that in interviews, including the fact that he rarely prays, if at all, and does not go to temples to pray in any case. That he still launched a campaign for the Ram Mandir is not inconsistent with that fact. In fact, many of the RSS leaders historically have not been religious Hindus. Much of the current leadership is also not particularly religious either, except perhaps for public consumption. Why, Praveen Togadia is not even a Hindu – he is a Jain (see the following article on this very blog for references to that).
http://indianmuslims.in/gujarat-conversion-law-amendment-to-facilitate-jains/
My views on the moral corruption of Advani (and Jinnah) should be obvious from my previous post. I think the politics of both left only misery for people in its respective trail. How is that inconsistent with the fact that both are not personally corrupt? Hitler was also not personally corrupt – but saying that does not mean that one agrees with what he did.
As to Advani’s political constituency – my point was made in jest about a coincidence. If you cannot see that, you really need help, my friend. In any case, how does it matter what path he took. Is there any error in what I wrote?
Please read up and learn to read what others write, before accusing others of lying. It is a serious statement to make and I take objection to it. You could continue to do what you have been doing all along on this blog – try to become chummy with a few people you like, indulge in mutual backslapping and write inane posts. Or you could elevate yourself and your participation to a higher level.
Girish,
Your being on the blog or on Earth longer is no guarantee of either your knowledge or your stand or your secular credentials.
The fact that you’re bringing up the stated irreligiousity of rss leaders etc is a pointer to your leanings if nothing else. You may believe you are secular, but to my mind anyone who stands up for the rss or togadia is only claiming to be.
As for advani, it’s going to continue to be difficult for me to imagine anyone as being anything but religiously motivated who earned his stripes on rath yatras, spouting Ram Mandir, demolishing the Babri Masjid. Irrespective of what he has claimed in interviews (you wanna believe him, go ahead, be gullible like one sad part of the electorate) & irrespective of what is written about him.
I will believe that actions speak louder than words; so to me he (& the other worms you’ve mentioned) is a Hindu fanatic, something that necessarily makes him religious in some strange sense of the word!
I speak of moral corruption. I don’t know (& don’t want to) what corruption you speak of.
The constituency jesting that you had initiated actually should make them opposites of each other not similar. Hopefully you can see that!
No error in what you wrote. I just pointed out one more flaw in the man’s moral fibre.
Maybe if you learnt to distinguish between fact & mere opinion, it would help my reading of it. And I didn’t accuse anyone of “lying”. Maybe you need to take your own advice about reading that you’re so eloquently proffering.
The Internet (& by extension the blogosphere) has always been a place to meet kindred souls. I meet people like Sridhar, Sudie, Milind, Mukesh & many others, I like their secular, peace-loving ways, I back-slap them & encourage their behaviour. I meet people like you & witness poorly disguised partisan behaviour, I counter you. It’s very simple actually, and I am very content with my interactions here, thank you.
I’m hoping that by “higher level” you don’t mean “feet not firmly on the ground”, or worse, something to do with the word “high”.
There are a few Indians who have got positive views on reunifications. But they may have noticed that not many pakistanis are eager. Please also see the kashmir issue a direct offshoot to the creation of Pakistan.
As someone said above maybe a union is possible. The 2 nation theory may have been wrong at one time but it has solid foundations now. Maybe a Hindu India and a Muslim India for permanent peace between Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent, resolution of Kashmir issue can be thought of. At least the India will be common between them.
1conoclast:
For the record, I have always stood against people of the RSS, Advani included. Oldtimers on this forum like Mohib, Mirza Faisal, Adnan and many others would readily testify to that, as would scores of others from the Writers_Forum (a group of largely Paksitani forumers), the Aligarians forum (incidentally also started by Mohib and again largely composed of Muslims given the character of AMU). It would be testified by another occasional participant here, Nafisul Hasan, who runs the Sir Syed school for poor Muslim children in Dehradun, to which I have been a regular contributor because I believe in the cause of education and its power in ensuring that disadvantaged groups get their rights. It is also something that my mother worked many years for and hence my passion for it. She was a teacher and later Vice Principal in a school set up to give quality English education to primarily Muslim children – all of them from poor families.
You know very little about my stand and are assuming things based on God knows what – not my postings for sure. My position would be obvious from my posts here as well including the previous post of mine – I believe the politics of the RSS have caused misery at large. The point where we disagree is that I believe Jinnah and the Muslim League were similar. They caused immense misery as well. I do not think Advani’s certificate to Jinnah changes the facts. Another point of disagreement is that I don’t think most of India’s politicians are secular. That is an opinion that most truly secular folks such as Sridhar, would readily share. I also don’t believe in giving a bye to communalists of one shade vs. another. I dislike all communalists, whether saffron or green in color.
I don’t need certificates from people like you, who have had zero positive contribution on this forum. Thanks and good day.