Indian Muslims as chessboard pieces

Prafull Goradia

Casteism, no doubt, is a divisive factor but a greater divide is between those Hindus who call themselves nationalists, and Hindus whom they call anti-Hindus. As for the Muslims, who have no national or regional level leadership, they allow themselves to be manipulated by politicians, being used as pawns by players resident abroad.

The recent carnage at Godhra, for example, was not consistent with the Muslim aspirations. True, a series of riots took place in British India starting with 1893 at Mumbai and Azamgarh and reaching a climax during the Direct Action of 1946, which was the Muslim League's final assault for partitioning the country. The carnage that took place during 1947, just before and immediately after August, was an attempt to scare people into migrating; or rather induce the process of ethnic cleansing wherever possible.

Communal riots in Independent India, were the result of manipulation that has been referred to above. Before delving into the hows and whys of Indian Muslims allowing themselves to be used as pieces on the chessboard, it would be appropriate to stress that Qaid-i-Azam MA Jinnah was not only an outstanding but also the last of the tall Muslim leaders of the subcontinent. Muslim separatism did not begin with the Muslim League. From records in the English language readily available, the first leader who voiced its need was Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan of the Aligarh Muslim University. As Dr Aziz Ahmed has put it in his work, Studies in Islamic Culture, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, first published in 1964 (2000), Sir Sayyid was the first modern Muslim to suggest that Hindus and Muslims constituted two separate nations. Professor Amir Ali, who founded the National Mohammedan Association in Calcutta, expressed similar views.

It is not widely known that Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was most forthright about the Muslim interests before his joining the Congress with the advent of Mahatma Gandhi. Writing in Al Hilal during 1913, Azad said the Muslims need not join any party. They are the ones who, for centuries, made the world join their party and follow their path. They constitute the Party of God, Hizbullah. Al Hilal advocates never to trust government nor to take lessons from Hindus. (Quoted from Gandhi by BR Nanda, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, first published in 1989).

Maulana Mohamed Ali had also been frank. He repeatedly spoke about the irreconcilable differences between the Muslims and the Hindus. On 8 February 1908, he told Gopal Krishna Gokhale that he was sorry that his Hindu friends had opposed the desire of Muslims to secure independent reservation through separate electorates. To talk of unity in this connection was absurd. Unlike to the Hindus, territorialism did not appeal to the Muslims. (Quoted from Gandhi by BR Nanda, page 127.) The famous poet Allama Iqbal pleaded for a separate Muslim homeland. Speaking in a League meeting at Allahabad in December 1929, he articulated the Two Nation Theory as an irreconcilable Hindu- Muslim difference. Chowdhry Rahmat Ali coined the term Pakistan and proposed the concept of a separate homeland later in 1934.

Over the next few years, Jinnah defined his concept of Pakistan. He did not merely want to divide the territory of the country but he also insisted that the non-Muslims should vacate their homes and go across the borders. Clearly, the Qaid-e-Azam had visualised the complications which might assail the Muslims. Equally he was consistent with the tenets of Islam and history of India. Ideally, the endeavour of every momin or faithful Muslim is to make all human beings submit to Allah. If persuasion does not give results, he should resort to jihad.

Post-Independence, there has been a long tale of Muslim manipulation by anti-Hindu politicians. Election after election, many of them have been used as ballot fodder to ensure the victory of self-styled secularists.

The question is, why the anti-Hindu politicians, who were in any case Hindu, did not switch sides and become nationalists. Hypothetically, they could have abandoned their self-styled secularism and sought the Hindu vote bank. The answer is that, perhaps, due to his humiliation in South Africa, at the core of his heart Gandhi hated the British above everything else. To illustrate, he wrote, "Muslim rule is equivalent to Indian rule. I would, any day, prefer Muslim rule to British rule." In order to throw them out, he considered keeping Muslims on his side as a potential trump card.

As for Nehru, It was in his interest, too, to discourage the Muslims from emigrating and to mould them into a vote bank which he assiduously cultivated and retained for years beyond his own death. This is testified by the special provisions made for the minorities in Articles 29 and 30 of the Indian Constitution.

In the light of this history, one's heart goes out to the innocent Muslims who get trapped in the crossfire of rioting or even of terrorism. Any devout Muslim feels that he cannot really fulfill himself and blossom as the servant of Allah unless he lives in a Dar-ul-Islam. His only addiction is separatism. For him to stay in India with a secular Constitution is, to that extent, frustrating. What happened at Godhra, however horrifying, was a symptom of this frustration.