In the first part of this article I argued why I consider Hindu militant nationalism practiced by RSS/ VHP brand of politics the greatest threat being faced by Indian nation. Expectedly my observation raised objections – most of them well meaning- that classifying communalism as minority or majority is self defeating as it tries to rationalize minority communalism. I admit that this is a sensitive territory and it may appear that I am trying to find excuses for minority communalism. However, let me state once again that it is not my intention here to rationalize anything. I am trying to understand the potential and possible impacts of communalism on the fabric of Indian nation and it is my conclusion that Hindu militancy has a much greater potential and likelihood to sabotage India’s future than anything else.
An objection was raised on this forum that it was Muslim extremism that finally led to creation of Pakistan (and Bangladesh), and hence my claim that minority communalism lacks the wherewithal for creation of a new nation is invalid. In my opinion, creation of Pakistan exactly proves my point that geographical concentration is a critical factor required for a national (or anti-national) ideology to become a mass movement. Before you can convince people about a new nation, you necessarily have to have a convincing answer to “where?”. In the absence of a convincing answer to “where”, any national (or anti-national) ideology can only remain on the margins of society with a few radicals passing their dreams from one generation to the other, bringing constant nuisance and destruction in their wake but nothing more. The reason I consider 
Hindu militancy a greater threat to India is that they have all the critical ingredients for a neo-national movement and their progress towards this goal has been steady, continuous and sometimes unchallenged, in recent times.
In most cases, distorted comparison of two types of communalism comes into picture since majority communalism is able to hide behind militant nationalism. Majority communalism does not seem to impact territorial integrity of the nation and hence treated as relatively harmless. On the other hand, few minority extremist groups dream of taking over the nation and hence easily identified as anti-national. SIMI provides an interesting contrast here. In my college days, I have known and spoken to many SIMI ideologues and it was quite apparent that they were not pursuing any “separatist” agenda. Rather their official goal was to “take back” India and convert it into an “Islamic nation”, just as it was in medieval times. In this, their goal is a direct mirror image of RSS’ “Hindu Rashtra” concept. I do not know if it makes their goals any more holier than a separatist movement, however some people indeed seem to think so. In any case while SIMI’s agenda is
clearly recognized as anti-India – which it certainly is – RSS version of “Hindu Rashtra” is largely treated with benign indifference even by educated Indians. In my view, this difference makes RSS version of “Hindu Rashtra” even more dangerous.
Let us now try to realistically assess what “Hindu Rashtra” can mean for India. On the positive side, “Hindu Rashtra”can bring a homogenization effect on India and probably smoothen some of the conflicts that we see today in India. However, on the negative side, it will cause the entire minority population – which though small in terms of percentage is still substantially large in absolute numbers – to loose their stake in the nation building and its survival. From Sri Lanka to Yugoslavia and from Rwanda to Lebanon, we have repeatedly seen what such transition or even attempts for transition can lead to. In this case, example of Rwanda has eerie resemblance to Indian situation. Minority Tutsi – less educated than majority Hutu, more involved in criminal activities, substantially less represented in administration and government and substantially poor – were portrayed as the root cause of all problems of Rwanda. It was widely believed that if only, Rwanda could somehow get rid of its “nuisance” Tutsi minority, a very bright future awaited their nation. What happened later is too painful to recount.
After sixty years of independence, Indian economy is finally in some position to take off. It should come as a matter of happiness for all. However, buoyed by economic success, rhetoric of Hindu militancy has taken an even more sinister turn. In states, where these forces are in power, such as in Gujarat, it is evident for anyone to see that less educated and less successful Muslim minority is already being portrayed as a “burden” on state resources and as an impediment to nation’s economic progress. An already marginalized and beleaguered community is pushed more into the corner, but people do not 
seem unduly perturbed by these latest developments.
India was fortunate to have an Ambedkar who gave a world class constitution for an emerging nation, and a Nehru who chose the unusual path of constitutional democracy that was unheard of in a poor nation like India. Subsequent generation of Indians have reaped the fruit of solid constitutional foundation laid by Ambedkar and Nehru. However, how long they can expect it to serve them, if they keep pushing India determinedly towards the situations of a civil war? Whether justified or unjustified, it is for anyone to see that a social and economic segregation on communal lines has already set in in parts of India and if not rectified in time neither our booming IT industry nor our rising sensex will be able to save us from doom. In my view, “Hindu Rashtra” is the last thing India can afford. It will be the end of our dreams – Hindus and Muslims alike (and Sikhs and Christians and others as well) of building a modern and progressive nation. What makes this prospect still more chilly is the fact that this is not an unrealistic prognosis. Fault lines have already been nurtured and carefully crafted on Hindu vs. non-Hindu issue and one or two emotive issues are all that is needed to bring the situation to a full fledged chaos. I am not saying that minority extremist groups in India have got any less obnoxious agendas for them. However, I do not see any of them having necessary reach to precipitate such a disaster on national scale. It is only Hindu militant groups that have sufficient reach and acceptance to push India into a calamity on national level.
Many Indians do not seem to understand the rationale behind constitutional restrictions against polarizing votes on communal lines. They think that these are good things to have like pious assertions of “do not tell a lie” or “respect your elders” etc., but in essence do not mean much. They fail to see that polarization of elections on communal lines undermines the very basis of democratic process. If elections are polarized on communal lines, then minorities may as well abstain from voting. Their vote would not impact the outcome in a polarized election. A recent example of this can be seen in latest Gujarat assembly election where BJP did not even went for canvassing in Muslim majority areas. As a politician, Mr. Modi probably did the right thing by not going to Muslim majority areas, which were anyway not going to vote for him. However, with this one stroke, he also took away the last shred of dignity from that person, who nurtured the belief – albeit false- that at least for a day he had the power to punish him. The message is unambiguously clear: we do not want you and we do not care for you. While most of the BJP leaders have treated Muslims as “necessary evil”, Mr. Modi is unique in downgrading them by one more notch to the status of “unnecessary evil”. Even their votes are not needed!
I am often asked that for years, various political parties have tried to polarize minority votes on communal issues. Why single out BJP on this? I agree that their objection is valid. However, in my opinion, even when minority votes are polarized on communal lines – though unconstitutional – it still does not impose the same challenges on democratic process. Even when minority votes are polarized, majority votes are still important. They do not get excluded from the democratic process. OTOH, polarization of majority votes effectively excludes minorities from any democratic forum to raise their voice. In a polarized election, their votes become meaningless. Let me add here that I am not condoning polarization of minority votes on communal lines, however I want to make sure that the difference in their effect is seen clearly. Polarization of votes on communal lines does not leave minority groups with any democratic leverage to make their voices heard, while it is not the same for majority. Anyone who cares for the long term stability of India should be worried with the prospect where one group does not have or is made to feel that it does not have recourse to a democratic weapon.
Next in the argument, suppose for a moment that India turns into a “Hindu Rashtra” in a peaceful manner. Wouldn’t that be in the interests of Hindus at least? Now here is my argument that I am almost embarrassed to raise. I say- “embarrassed”, because as a Muslim, I am aware that Muslim majority nations have themselves not set any good examples to boast of. Quite frankly, some of the worst offenders in this category might be Muslim majority nations. Anyway, it is immaterial whether the policy is followed by a Muslim majority nation or otherwise. As far as I can see there is a direct correlation in a society’s backwardness and its closed world view. I have been living in the US for past few years and in my opinion, the greatest strength of this country is its open world view and its willingness to learn from others. Correlation between a closed world view and backwardness is so strong that you can observe it even in those countries which have almost similar economies. Thus Kuwait is more developed than Bahrain which in turn is more developed than Iran, though all three share similar economic resources.
In my view, the best example of this correlation comes from the history of Islam itself. Glorious days of Islamic civilization have almost invariably been characterized by an open world view and a willingness to learn from others. Whatever RSS history books might tell, a casual reading of the world history will convince the reader that on medieval standards, Islamic centers were some of the most tolerant and least xenophobic cultures medieval world had seen. Treatises of Aryabhatta and Bhaskaracharya were debated in Basra and Baghdad, much before anyone else had even heard of them. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle would have been lost to humanity but for their Arabic translations. Contrast this with today, where there is a rush among “Islamic” countries to see who can come up with most retrograde and obnoxious interpretation of Quran and Hadees; and also contrast this with their general well being today. There is no reason to believe that India will be an exception to this correlation. If we are wise, we can always learn from others’ mistake. However, if we are committed to learn the hard way, we can choose to make our own mistakes.
A related issue often comes into discussions about minorities’ plight in Pakistan and Bangladesh. I do not know how to respond to such arguments. Did we adopt a modern and progressive constitution in India to compete with Pakistan and Bangladesh after 60 years? And why stop there? May be Uganda or Surinam or Cameroon treat their minorities still worse. Should we then adopt them as our role models? Some Indian Muslims – defensive of minorities’ treatment in Pakistan or Bangladesh – give examples of Kuwait or UAE, where minorities are a shade better. I do not know why we should settle for even these middling nations? Why not compare ourselves with the US or UK or France? My sincere request to everyone is to stop degrading India by comparing it to Pakistan and Bangladesh. If we keep on comparing ourselves always with failures, that is the most we will reach. We have much better examples in the world than Pakistan or Bangladesh. Rather, in my opinion, Pakistan is a great example of where radicalization of majority world view can lead a nation.
I have often been told that Hinduism is an essentially tolerant religion and a “Hindu Rashtra” can never degenerate into a religious bigotry. I am going to make some observations here with full humility and utmost respect towards Hinduism. In my view – whatever the pious proclamations of a religion may declare – it is always amenable to abuse. The evidence of Hinduism’s tolerance from medieval periods when it did not have political power is hardly meaningful. On the other hand, evidence from post independence India is for everyone to see and I can not say that in itself it is any reassuring. Even before independence, Hindus had undisputed power over one section of society – viz. Dalits – and their treatment of Dalits would hardly convince anyone that because of its essential tolerance, Hinduism can not degenerate into bigotry. In my view it is only the solid constitutional safeguards that can check religious bigotry, not the pious assertions in a particular belief.
An often overlooked aspect of “Hindu Rashtra” concept is the place of Dalits in “Hindu Rashtra”. Ambedkar had at one time asked for Dalitstan due exactly to the apprehension of a “Hindu Rashtra”. Though, in recent times, Dalits have often been mobilized against the common enemy viz. Muslim, “Hindu Rashtra” is still largely for a Sanskritized Hinduism, which beef eating Dalits have little in common with. It is for anyone to see that when anti-Muslim passions generated by riots cool down, interests of Dalits are almost always at variance with caste Hindus. As far as I can see, in the absence of a common enemy viz. Muslims, Dalits will have a very tough time reconciling to RSS version of “Hindu Rashtra”. And I find it dreadful to even speculate on what could be the final impact of “Hindu Rashtra” on our North East states or Punjab.
Of course, this dreadful prospect is not something that is our inescapable destiny. We still have a fine constitutional machinery that has served us well. All that is needed is that we do not undermine it and do not bulldoze it with brute force. Indians have a lot to thank their stars that the architects of their nation were leaders of tremendous sagacity and foresight. However, if they are hell bent on digging their graves, no one else will come to shed tears for them.
AJK Said “The average Indian Muslim scurries around, head tucked below parapet, getting on with his or her life while knowing any minute their lives are worth less than nothing.”
Boy, what rubbish is this. looks like indian muslims have adopted the oriental concept of fatalism.
Ok, more seriously, cut the melodrama.
assalamoalaikum
this is the first time i am writing a post on a supposedly muslim site.. the whole above dabate is wonderful to read and very enlightening..the only question i as a muslim want to ask people here and mainly muslims is that can we possibly solve the issue of the conflict of diversity wether it be in india or anywhere else in the world.
its heartening to see is that everyody here is very keen on promoting harmony .and
all of us have different ideas and views .
i read words like majorityism and mobocracy above.
what i didnt read is that nobody said that people as a whole either do require a moral code of conduct or not.. unless we make a decsion on what is morally(i know the word moral has become much of a cliche but its not the moral policing thing i amtalking about) right or whats not this whole issue of not agreeing and conflict of interest in my opinon will never go away.. its just my opinion ..
couse i believe what we do in our normal daily lives decide what we think and what we want from the future .
the only differnce can make as muslims to this country or for that matter whereever we live is that we make a difference in peoples lives who r close to us irrespective..
Secularist,
I’ll stand by my statement that large, threatening (threatening to take away power, that is) religious minorities will not find tolerance in a nation, state, kingdom, or anything else that defines itself along religious lines. And this applies regardless of the religion, Hinduism included. Yes, sects and sub-sects and Buddishts and Jains and Parsis and Jews, will all find tolerance. And if Muslims were a small portion of India, and did not convert anyone or threaten to convert anyone, and did not present a threat to the ruling power, they would find the same in a Hindu Rashtra.
But that’s not reality, and that’s playing out on the ground, right now. Modi-led Gujurat is the closest thing to Hindu Rashtra that the subcontinet has known since the modern era began, and can it in any sense be defined as “tolerant” towards its Muslim population?
Once things are defined along religious terms, larger minorities are doomed; the experience of Hindus is Bangladesh or Pakistan, or the experience of Muslims in portions of India where the RSS dominates, proves this. Smaller minorities will be fine (or, at least, do better) because they don’t pose a threat. The only exception to this in an Indian sense would be religions like Buddhism or Sikhism, whose advance would be accepted because most Hindus regard them as offshoots of their own religion anyways, and in fact see them as corrections of Hinduism’s more negative aspects (casteism, etc), as opposed to a rejection of the culture or religion itself.
Asad,
I see a pattern in your posts and reponses. In general, when discussing Hindu-Muslim issues in India, you seem to regard all of the following as largely non-relevant, and things to be dismissed:
1. Any historical mistreatment of Hindus or the Hindu religion by Islam.
2. The role of Muslim “communalism” or Islamic political activism in stoking the fears of other people – these are not really dangerous in India, because of Islam’s minority status, and so should be dismissed when talking about communalism and the Hindu-Muslim dynamic in India.
3. The cultural and ethnic cleansing of the Hindu populaces of Pakistan and Bangladesh – these parts of India which are no longer part of it, have no relevance to intra-Indian discussions.
4. Terrorism, which is the violent branch of a larger political movement that enjoys support in large sections of the Indian Muslim populace, should have no bearing on any discussion between Hindus and Muslims.
In contrast to these non-relevant subjects, the following subjects are all always relevant:
1. Hindu communalism, and the dangers it poses to secular India.
2. Portions of Indian history that show the tolerant face of Islam.
3. Gujarat, Modi
By deciding what’s relevant and not relevant, you automatically skew the discussion. By putting all Hindu issues into the non-relevant category, you simply dismiss the legitimate concerns, fears, and feelings of Hindus on the entire problem; only the Muslim concerns are given any legitimacy, at all. That’s hardly a way forward.
@Chirag:
Where did you get the idea that I dismiss mistreatment of Hindus or communalism of Muslims? I would love to know where exactly you think I have supported any of them.
In regard to Pakistan and Bangladesh, I consider them failed states and I find it humiliating when others compare my country to some failures. What’s wrong in this?
And yes, I feel strongly about Modi. This fellow has made my country a laughing stock worldwide. He has set aside all constitutional niceties and negated the values that founding fathers of my country stood for. Why do you expect me to have any sympathies for him?
I think this site is for all Indians but specially for all Indian Muslims. I believe it will be wrong if for instance someone wants to get an RSS viewpoint article here. The good thing is that this site does accept a lot of messages which attack Islamic fundamentalism allthough the article might relate to Fundamentalism in general.
I think the Hindu Muslim fight has never existed at all in India. It has all along been political games played for votes. However, where I believe Indian Muslims can be better is by showing the moderate and progressive face of Islam to the world. The world allready looks at Indian Muslims whenever talks are there worldwide about moderate face of Islam. Believe me or not this happens in US, UK everywhere. Indian Muslims are considered a benchmark for peace. It was a shock when Kafeel, Sabeel thing happened. Indian Muslims have all along played a very strong ”INDIAN’ role just like Indian christians, Sikhs or Buddhists.
Hindus even in RSS should take this note. Where i strongly believe with Asad or Indian Muslims is that 1992 or Gujarat was a blot on this nations secular character. What Modi did was not only a shock for all Indians but it also sent shock waves amongst the Muslim world which traditionally considered India closer to them. Pakistan infact encashed this terribly. Please see this article by an Arab and the response by a pakistani strategist.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/730/in1.htm
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/738/letters.htm
I think Indian Muslims have played a rock solid role in the Arab world and they are now needed then ever before to play this role. The Arab world needs to see that Pakistan bowed down to USA immediately in war of terror which is infact harming their interests. India on the other hand even though with its relations with Israel has always supported Palestine cause.
India has been the country of greatest civilisations, empires and culture. If one talks of Kanishka, Chandragupta Maurya it also talks of Ashok and Akbar. It was during Akbar’s rule that queen elizabeth sent a letter to him that his word of humanity has reached to even this corner of the world. It is sad that Aurangzeb is being considered a benchmark by both hindus and Muslims to evaluate the face of Islam in sub continent. Indians should rise above their petty differences to make this country a super power. The most brazenly stupid fight is between Hindus and Muslims who have lived together in this continent for now 1000 years.
Asad,
Bangladesh is not a failed state. It is currently ruled by the army, but otherwise, it’s done OK given its difficult circumstances. It has been absolutley intolerant towards its Hindu minority (ever hear of the “Enemy Properties Act”?), but otherwise, is not really a “failure” per se. Pakistan, a different story, let’s see what happens now.
I get the feeling that you have been arguing these points for a while now and a feeling some frustration. Have you convinced very many Hindus of the truth of what you are saying?
If not, it may be because your approach is incorrect – if you begin by stating that all communalism is bad, but that Hindu communalism is particularly bad, nobody is going to listen to you – this is the same garbage that the Nehruvian secularists and leftists have been feeding us all these decades, while they bartered away our interests entirely, and repeatedly defamed our religion and civilization – so nobody believes that anymore, and nobody ever will believe that again. Everyone rejects it. If you try this argument, you end up in the anti-Hinduism boat, or at least perceived as part of that boat, and you won’t ever get any traction. You’ll get much farther with a different approach.
On a lighter note I think one argument may well settle the debate – India is primarily about Might is Right and Rule by the Lawless.
If you are a powerful goon commanding firepower with absolutely no respect for the rule of law then you are political material. You may be a Hindu, Muslim, or the from the most depressed social class. Nothing matters as long as you are willing to be a shameless criminal. That in itself shows the secular spirit of India. Where on earth would you find people like Mohammad Shahabuddin, Mukhtar Ansari, Afzal Ansari, Dharam Pal Yadav, Babubhai Khimabhai Katara cutting across party lines in shameless mockery of civilized society. These are the new empowered “classes” who are making fools of us by shifting between “secularism” and “communalism” as per convenience while people like us debate Indian culture. I wonder why the “Fidayeen” or “Jihadists” or for that matter “Protectors of Hindu Rashtra” never target criminal politicians.
Just today we had a news story of security guards of Lalu sons providing cover for “eve teasing”.
What we need in India is nothing more than a genuine commitment to our constitution and the rule of law.
Whether it is Godhra or the aftermath of Godhra, steam of communal politics could have been taken out simply by upholding the rule of law in both the cases. Sadly such simple solution eludes our politicians. Short sighted people cannot see that enforcing the rule of law is the only way for India to stand together and make progress.
This is a great article and a wonderful discussion. After all is said and done, after all the fears of either communities are expressed, acknowledged and accepted, what is the solution? The inspiration for a solution is right here in this discussion. Irrespective of differences, historical grievances and perceived or real discrimination, all Indians stand united for the idea of India as a secular democratic and progressive country where all citizens feel safe, secure and can prosper. It seems to me that in various ways the interactors are searching for a COMMON MINIMUM PROGRAM on which all citizens can agree on. Well folks, we are fortunate that a CMP is already present and has been around for 60 years. It is called the CONSTITUTION OF INDIA and in particular its vigorous enforcement. For, irrespective of where we come from, we can all agree on the real evils(Corruption, Unaccountable police, institutions) which plague this country and all problems now will vanish or become irrelevant if only we can strengthen law enforcement without political interference. This is one thing I believe each Indian from the RSS to communist to the ulema to the moderates to hindu, muslim, christian, sikh, atheist, agnostic etc. will agree on. For if he does’nt then he will be a true anti-national.
That was a brilliant piece of reasoning. I wonder, Chirag, what Asad’s ‘approach’ should be. While it might be perfectly true that most Hindus will not want to listen to him, that doesn’t mean that he is using the wrong ‘approach’. He is merely presenting an unpleasant truth, and I must say he puts it forth with calm reasonableness. I am full of admiration for Asad’s stance.
Talking about and arguing over caste/religion states/countries is BS and is not the way forward. It belongs to yesteryears.
These parties are just creating a further divide between haves and have nots by propelling the poor into such caste based divisions. I never heard of this stuff till 1990s when the rath yatras were started by BJP. Though I think BJP is way ahead of congress (morons), the caste based agendas are a let down to BJP.
I don’t need a political party to tell me about by roots. Such parties and the events that they create are just a reverse gear for our country.
Anyways these political parties and governments are not the future. We need to push forward towards social entrepreneurism and take things in our hands at the local community levels. Adopt some areas and bring about real change. Who’s gonna teach that to India’s young population. Thats a trend worth waiting for. IT cos, MBAs? anybody listening?
Nice blog, good to see people standing up and getting counted.
Minority-Majority discussion will not take you any where. Be one and make India strong and powerful.
I think one conclusion that i can draw from all that i have read so far, is that we want to see a strong, prosperous, progressive nation. A nation called India. What comprises a nation- Its people. Who are these people- Hindus, Cristians, Muslims, Jains, Sikhs and thousands of other faiths that we dont even know about. India historically never belonged to one religion or belief or ideology, it will never be in the future. This is great news- we can hope that this does not happen in the future.
I think Ajad is a bit scared at the prospect of “Hindu Rashrta” just as i am scared at the concept of the “caliphate” spreading from Spain to Indonesia. By doing this both of us have fallen prey to the concept of majority – monority and rightly so.Why do minority fear majority; because by sheer numbers one can control power and resources. So the very basis of politicised- religion or even Talibinization is absolute control of power and resources while using religion. We see examples of this from Taliban’s Afghanisatan to Lebanons Hezbollan and Hamas in the Gaza strip. Today there are more examples of intolerant muslims using the religion to gain power. Lebanon was secular country. Rising islamization of society ( by procreation as well as preaching Mullas) had ensured that the progressive secularists are marginalized. Pakistan is another example of a nation going that way. The question- whether India as “Hindu Rashtra” might go the same way is not very pertinient. What couldn’t be done at the painful time of the birth of the nation cannot be done when the nation is 60+ years old, more educated, more industrialized and arguably less religious. But what can happen is that the 500 million+ poor, mostly ill-equipped to face life Indians- will turn against the state ( this includes perhaps 100+ million poor Muslims as well). Why do we have Naxalites- economic marganilization; why do we Iraq – expected economic marganilization; why do we have LTTE – similar reasons.
I think the root of all such problems is poverty fed by fuel of intolerence giving rise to rebellion that seeks control and power. A state expecting growth and progress has to adderess this. If India cant do this , it will never be successful. A “Hindu Rashtra” or any other rashtra will never be successful if it creates prosperity for only majority people. India has to create prosperity for all of us. People who oppose this have to be taken into confidence though inclusive means. This will ensure that the majority of the minority is with the nation (note that minority= economic minority). Once this is achieved the minority of the minority should be crushed ( e.g SIMI or any other intolerant Hindu or Sikh organization). Then the dream of a “Rashtra” will be realized – strong, prosperous and progressive.
To me its immaterial whether India is majority Muslim or majority Hindu or even Christian. What matters is a Great INDIAN nation that makes all of us proud.
asad ,
recently ban on ‘simi’ is lifted, wat do u think is the reason for the unliftment of the ban…
has the new congress gov done this in order to have muslim votes???
i want ur take on this..
we all know wat simi s all about…, gov too is not blind…
I think the yearning of Indians should be for a TRUELY, free, secular, socialist & democratic India which is:
- Strictly IRRELIGIOUS (i.e. no public funds or assests, preferences for, discrimination against, policies or laws based on or for or any such favours for any religion, religious bodies, adherents, or representatives be they of the majority or minority)
- Completely and solely compliant with UDHR when granting rights to its citizens especially complete freedom to praise, criticize, accept, reject, preach and/or present any philosophy, faith, concept or entity.
- Social benefits are based solely on, for and the social condition of the FAMILY unit irrespective the communal afflication, faith or belief of its members.
- Special emphasis on the environment and its conservation
- Special emphasis on the prevention of cruelty to animals
- Special emphasis on children’s health, primary and secondary education
- Special emphasis on science & technology.
Asad,
I see the problem as lack of trust between communities. Muslims are wary of a hindu state, hindu’s are worried about muslim population rising and their concentration in large numbers in areas across each city.
The way to approach forward is to higlight the cases in media where there is an act of brotherhood across religions and not to publish idealogies of radical islamic & hindu activist as the voice of the Nation and respective religion.
Like I hear that how common man is brainwashed into being a terrorist, let us teach all hindus, muslims and other religions on good acts N deeds displayed by one community against another.
In democracy majority decides the way the country moves forward. It is not hindu and not muslim. One National Anthem is not a hindu song , it is an Indian song and their should not be choice provided to any religion whether to sing it or not. ‘We should not put religion first and then nation’. Same may be the case with any other policy which is put considering the religion first then nation.
@Sumit,
I agree with you completely. The examples where true brotherhood is manifested really need to be highlighted.
A brilliant example is the Jodhpur stampede, where Muslims donated generously, operated ambulances and even donated blood.
Let us highlight more and more of all this.
When I was growing up in Belgaum Karnataka, we had Maratha neighbours with whom we celebrated Holi, Gudhi Padwa attended weddings and never felt any hate between us. They also reciprocated the same way as we did. we all grew up with harmony and peace. When ever we had family disputes , they advised us and acted mediators. woh din hawa huwe jab padosi mein pyar tha. Today it is a race with the devil. There is no dialogue, no mediation, no understanding, taking law into one’s own hand.
The Hindus must not worry about the muslims, because we are a forgiving religion. If we do not forgive then we are not Muslims. Let me take you the seize of Jerusalem by Saladin. The commander of the Jerusalem says if they surrender then the Muslims would do the same what the crusaders had done to the Muslims, murder masacare, loot, pillage, arson, rape etc,. What Saladin answers is “we are not those people” . Surrender and your people will be given safety passage to the Christian lands with protection. Such is Islam, Islam is spread by example and not by sword. Mercy is one of the many traits of Islam.
We haved lived in Harmony before, so whay not now. RSS, VHP, BJP and all, how far can they go. Within the boundaries of India only. Today the Muslim world is not united, what will happen when they all unite and start looking into records. Hence please fear for your future generations and live a life of normalancy. Live and let live. Leave the Christiand alone, for they too may start breathing on your necks and you will be surprised.
The Crusaders captured Jerusalem and annilated the Muslims from Jerusalem, blood bath. they resented the Muslims and hence killed everyone. Dont let them come to you as they do not take prisioners. Saladin gave them safe passage for we believe Allah forgives and not the humans.
Great discussion. Let me throw up my viewpoints.
Some people say that the tolerant nature of hinduism is bogus or hint towards that citing some communal instances that support this claim. The very fact that India opted for a secular constitution knowing that there is going to be a hindu majority shows its tolerance at the outset. Why did pakistan and bangladesh choose to be islamic governments? Didn’t pakistan have 20% non-muslims when it came into being? How did they protect their minority rights? By allowing the mullahs to kidnap the daughters of the hindu families and forcibly converting them to islam under threats of rape/murder and making them marry some uneducated mullah as his 4th or 5th wife. To make things worse these idiot mullahs divorce these girls after a few months and they are forced into prostitution to make ends meet? How about the ethnic cleansing in bangladesh? How about the islamization of kashmir? I am sure many indian muslims will comfortably wash their hands off the paki/b’desh and kashmir examples? Well, we had one masjid in india demolished while thousands of temples and sikh gurudwaras and their properties taken away by the govt in bangladesh and pakistan. Where was the tolerance of islam then?
Also many muslims think that the rise of hindutva is the problem. Little do they know that the rise of hindutva coincided with the khilafat and other islamic movements in early 1900s? Did the muslims know that the indian subcnotinent for the first 1000 years of the chrsitian era was a melting pot of religions/trade and centre for knowledge. Did they know how people willingly embraced to buddhism/jainism/zorastrianism/judaism and even islam? So, how did this change? The natives of the region did the biggest mistake of trusting that all other cultures will be as tolerant and liberal. They were only to be killed/raped and pillaged by subsequent invasions by the arabs/islamic caliphate/turks/persians and mongols. Not only did most of the invaders want to plunder its wealth and colonize the region, but wanted to spread islam at the instance of the prophet and the Quran. How unfair was the jizya tax, and the other threats such as ultimatums to convert to islam in the name of allah and the quran. This contnued for 800 yrs till the british came in the 18th century. We hear all about the benevolence of akbar. But the cruelties of the islamization continued even in his period.
It was only in the early 1900s when the first signs of independence from the british came about that muslims were threatened by the possibility of a non-islamic rule or even a neutral rule for the first time in 1000 years. This resulted in the khilafat movement and other cries for islamic rule in india or the creation of a separate muslim state. Gone were the originally hindu/buddhist regions of present day afghanistan/pakistan to muslim majorty populations. Gone were the regions in the kashmir valley where the vedic rishis produced their top notch works on philosophy. The 900 years of islamic rule had fundamentally altered the configuration of the vedic civilization.
During thsoe 1000 years the hindus did not have a single identity. They were ppl who just remained loyal to their ancestral faiths and not giving in to forcible conversions to other faiths. They worshipped what their ancestors worshipped and were proud of it in spite of the aggressive tactics of their muslim rulers. The islamization of the subcontinent as the 7th century caliphs dreamed of was not complete. So, all the ppl of the native faiths came to be referred to as hindus in a united umberella. It was in this environment that the RSS came into existence when the natives finally realzed that mistakes they made 1000 yrs ago cannot be repeated if they had to protect whatever that is left of their vedic heritage. It was this that made the RSS evolve into a protector of the native indian/vedic consciousness. While organizations like the Jamaa-e-islami and other funamentalist muslim outfits include the spread of islam and proselytizing of their faith and possibly establishing an islamic state in the heartland of india, the RSS or the Hindu mahasbha just wanted to protect what is left of the ancient hindu world. They just wanted to make sure that the present day Hindus retained their consciousness and did not forget the mistakes which they had made historically.
For some reason the muslims and islam somehow tried to maintain aspects of the arabic culture which was the birthplace of the religion, Hindus or in this case the native indian traditional followers were more suceptible to external influences because of the fact that it was inherently flexible and tolerant.
Even now the RSS charter says that they would like a secular state which guarantees to protect hindu interests along with other faiths. What they want to guard against is going back to an islamist style of governance.
After a 1000 yrs of getting oppressed by islamic rule and living under sharia law in a region where the hindus were a dominant culture it is easy to understand why people would afraid to trust that islam does not pose a danger to their freedom and not have political aspirations?
The recent history in pakistan/bangladesh and kashmir just reinforce their fears. Although many of our muslim brothers have shown to possess a very open mind, it will take a while for the trust to be gained among the hindu populace. The insecurity in their hearts is the result of 1000 years of colonialism. It will take a while to the hindus to erase the memories of a millenium and trust that even if the muslims become a majority, there will not be a danger to their culture and freedom to practice their religion. Heck, muslims in india have been under non-islamic rule for 300 years and have a lot of insecurity and want to protect their interests. How can they expect the hindus who have been under non-hundu rule for a 1000 yrs to overcome their fears?
I think lasting peace in the subcontinent will come only when the threat of cultural invasion subsides. Indian muslims should celebrate their indianness more than the arabic traits derived trough islam. They should embrace an indian/bharatiya version of islam and not view other religious faiths as a threat. After all even as back as the first millenium AD the culture of bharat was to embrace all faiths equally. Pluralism is the oldest faith in Bharath in my opinion. The same applied for Hindus as well. They need to start accepting the moderate or indianized islam as part of the culture. The more extremist versions of the islam like wahabbism etc are the ones that gives the average Hindu the creeps.
On of the reasons many hindus today hate the pseudo secular parties like congress and leaders like nehru- is that they never understood the hindu mindset and where these people were coming from. The parties like congress made the hindus the aggressors while muslims the victims resulting in votebank politics. What they failed to understand is that people of both the faiths are fighting their own demons and betray a sense of insecurity. Both the communities want guarantees that their interests will be preserved. The muslims see the recent history in pak/bangladesh/kashmir and see that being a minority they might meet the same fate if they dont fight proactively or it might be too late. The hindus on the other see the same situations in pak/BD/Kashmir and think that they can survive only as they outnumber the muslims. Unless this issue is overcome there will always be an element of mistrust and doubt in the minds of people n both sides.
Jai Hind.