|
The Muslim Indian Dilemma
By Omer Bin Abdullah
22/03/2001
Some Muslim Indians believe that the former captain of the Indian cricket team, Mohammed Azahraruddin, was banned for life on charges of match fixing only because he is a Muslim. And that even the fact that he is married to a Hindu actress could not save him.
Muslims in India, although over 150 million, remain a hapless minority; in reality, they are receding further down the socioeconomic ladder.
In 1992, Indian mobs, incited by Hindu extremists of the now ruling BJP party, tore down the historic 600-year old Babri Masjid. Now, they are threatening to "cleanse" India of all Muslim-era holy places, palaces, and artifacts. Muslim rulers, as usual, are responding with meaningless statements and, of course, the U.N. and the world community are bypassing these events - India's emerging market is far too precious to be sacrificed for morality.
Although the destruction of Babri Mosque led to popular protests across the Muslim world, in no instance was retaliation carried out against Hindu shrines or religious literature - not anywhere in the world. Similarly, the destruction of historic Bosnian masjids by the Serbs did not lead to retaliation against Christian religious objects. However, the Bamiyan incident in Afghanistan appears to have offered a prime excuse for Hindu mobs to burn copies of the Qur'an despite the fact that Buddha has nothing to do with Hinduism. Their actions well reflect the Hindu urge to strike at the very root of Islam - through any means necessary.
According to reports, Hindus fear that by 2015, the Muslims in Hindu-ruled India will be on par with them in numbers, and that one day, there may be majority Muslim rule if democracy is allowed to survive.
The rise of the "saffron forces" - Hindu radical groups - poses one of the most sanguine challenges to Muslims in India. The street power exerted by these groups was manifested in the forced exit of Canadian-Indian director Deepa Mehta from Benares on January 20th. Mehta had official clearance to film "Water," a story about the plight of Hindu widows - the final work in a trilogy that includes the controversial yet critically acclaimed films "Fire" and "Earth."
However, the right-wing Hindu Vishnu Parashad (VHP), a part of the ruling conglomerate, hounded Mehta after receiving objections to her portrayal of Hinduism's treatment of widows. By Hindu custom, they are expected not to remarry or even return to their own families following the death of their husbands - even though some may be as young as 10 or 12. Consequently, about half of widows end up as prostitutes, and about a quarter become concubines for wealthy Brahmans (the highest Hindu caste) while the remaining quarter remain "pure for God."
Some Indians see Mehta's experience as prefiguring a new intolerance or extremism in which right-wing thugs and Hindu fundamentalists will boldly dictate Indian policies from the street. "India has started evolving a new concept of 'cultural terrorism' and a vulgar intolerance that uses violence as its means of authority," says Yogindra Narayan Sharma, a local columnist in Benares. "The larger question is whether in two or five years, our entire system will reflect a cultural terrorism we have never had for 50 years. Today, it is three or four small groups. Tomorrow it may be 10 or 12," added Sharma.
Number Crunchers
Some Muslim Indians still believe that the 1947 Partition of India has disenfranchised them. They argue that there are at present 700,000,000 Muslims in the Indian subcontinent - Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh - and only 650,000,000 non-Muslims, of which only 2% are Brahmins, the class that rules India.
These Muslims believe, given the Islamic injunction of kinship, that the emergence of the other two nations did not end their responsibility towards India's Muslims. They ask: do Muslims in present-day Pakistani and Bangladesh bear any responsibility towards Indian Muslims following the establishment of their respective countries? Has time stopped; has history ended?
They say that while the Qaid-e-Azam Mohamed Ali Jinnah lived, the Muslims of India had a protector. India was only able to launch the invasion of Hyderbad Deccan the day the Qaid expired.
And that the Qaid had initiated a mission in which Pakistan was only a starting point. In fact, he was willing to accept just a handkerchief-sized Pakistan - a Muslim launching pad - in order to emancipate the Muslims of the entire region. However, what happened was that the concept of Ummah was transformed into the Western notion of nationhood, and people of the same nation (Ummah) were prevented from uniting into that nation (Ummah) - one that was created through much sacrifice. This situation defies the fact that Pakistan was created in order to foster love and understanding, not mutual hatred.
The 150,000,000 Muslims in India, who form the minority backbone of the nation, are deprived of so many things as a consequence of Indian policy, for no fault of their own. As suspect residents, they are called "Pakistanis" and are blamed for the creation of Pakistan, becoming the target of anti-Muslim policies.
India has a very Hindu-oriented policy, never giving up the cause of Hindus anywhere. They are taken care of by governmental and non-governmental Hindu organizations the world over. Any Hindu can walk up to an Indian border, claim Indian nationality, and be admitted - in fact, India's Prime Minister of India will give them a special seat in college and suitable rehabilitation.
It is obvious how India pulled strings through the Commonwealth, U.S., U.N., Australia, and other nations to obtain help for the Hindus in Fiji.
On the other hand, Pakistanis want to completely disown India's Muslims as well. They need to be reminded that Muslims should not give up their nation (Ummah) under any circumstances. India's Muslims point out that Pakistan was not made for certain tribes only, but as a bastion for Muslims of the subcontinent - from Kashmir to Sri Lanka, from Bombay to Burma.
Ironically, even Muslims who have migrated to Pakistan are being classified as Indians. However, before August 14, 1947, there was neither Pakistan nor India - only British India. Thus, anyone born before August 14, 1947 in the territories that formed India is considered a British Indian, and cannot be called an Indian because such a political identity did not exist then. All of those persons who migrated to Pakistan or were born within its borders after that date should be considered Pakistanis without discrimination.
Not only that - many heroes of the Pakistani movement have never been honored in Pakistan. Consider the example of Mir Osman Ali Pasha, the Nizam (ruler) of Hyderabad Deccan, who financed Pakistan's treasury in the early years, sacrificing his own state while opting for Pakistan. Despite his contributions, the Nizam has never been honored in Pakistan; there is no street named after him, nor a monument built for him.
Based on India's northwest border, Pakistan's location is of prime significance. It was the starting point from which Muslim conquerors, such as Mahmood Ghaznavi, entered the subcontinent. Allah willing, one day all of South Asia will be Muslim, springing from this base.
|
