[Reader-list] When will Muslims join the mainstream?

[Aditya Raj Kaul]

When will Muslims join the mainstream?
By M.V. Kamath

Organiser

It obviously does not occur to some mullahs and other reactionary
Muslims that by refusing to sing Vande Mataram and threatening to
withdraw Muslim children from schools where it is routine to sing
it, they are only telling their co-religionists to withdraw from the
Indian mainstream.

Like the Muslim League of pre-Independence days, one Minister of
Uttar Pradesh has called for the formation of a separate Muslim
state within the Indian Union instead of Harit Pradesh in western
Uttar Pradesh. It is one more divisive step that the Muslim
community is taking which is self-destructive and will only alienate
Muslims from their Hindu brethren further.

Refusing to sing Vande Mataram on extremely illogical grounds is bad
enough. Demanding a separate communal state is inviting more
trouble. Not that the idea will ever get accepted. But what it
reveals is a sick mind that continues to be rooted in the medieval
era. The argument one frequently hears is that Muslims are under-
represented in every State Legislature as well as in Lok Sabha. But
then whose fault is it.

If Muslims refuse to jo in the mainstream and insist on being
treated as a minority, they can hardly expect popular support. Past
experience plainly shows that when communal peace prevails Muslims
get more seats in the Lok Sabha. It is true that in the last
fourteen Lok Sabha elections only a fraction of the number of seats
they should normally deserve proportionate to their population were
won by Muslims. The truth is that they had, on their own, forfeited
the confidence of their Hindu brethren. If a minority lives apart
and stays apart from the majority community how can it possibly win
the trust, let alone affection, of the latter?

Consider the following figures: In the first Lok Sabha elections, if
one goes strictly by population percentage Muslims should have got
49 seats. Instead, they got 21 seats. In the second Lok Sabha
elections, the population percentage remained the same—but the
passions aroused by the Partition was subsiding and the Muslims won
24 seats, three more than in the first elections. In the third Lok
Sabha elections, population percentage-wise Muslim should have
received 53 seats but they won only 23. The highest number of seats
Muslims won was in the seventh Lok Sabha elections when, though
population-percentage wise they should have received 53 seats they
managed to secure 49—not bad.

Since then, largely because of emotional estrangement, the number of
Muslims elected to the Lok Sabha has been falling. From the tenth to
the four teen Lok Sabha elections they should have got 66 seats but
they could barely manage to get between 28 to 36 seats. The
fourteenth Lok Sabha elections were in 2004 when Muslims joined
different political parties, primarily to beat the BJP. Muslims got
ten seats in Congress, seven in the Samajwadi, four in the CPM, four
in the BJP, three in the RJD and one each in other local parties.

They can win more, if they get over their antediluvian ideas and
become a modern, liberated people, instead of a people suspect of
terrorism and anti-Indian motives. They can't get votes by putting
their women in burqas and sending their children to madrasas when
they should be sent to normal primary and secondary schools to be
one with their Hindu and other students from the majority and allied
religions.

There is another lesson that they should learn which is that hating
the BJP and trying to curry favour from the likes of Laloo Prasad
Yadav or Mulayam Singh Yadav or Mayavati will not help them. They
will continue to remain estranged from the majority community, no
matter what arguments the so-called secular parties may put forth to
win their favour.
Neither in Bihar, nor in Uttar Pradesh has the condition of Muslims
changed because they voted against the BJP. As Chaturanan Mishra, a
former Union Minister of Labour (1996-1998) and a prominent figure
in the Leftist movement in the country aptly noted in Mainstream
(August 17) , the Congress, allegedly the largest secular party
nominated 39 Muslims in 1991 and 1996, of whom only 12 could win.
Similarly, 32 Muslims were nominated by the Congress in 1998 but
only seven could succeed.

Religion can never be the base of getting a ticket. Muslim citizens
must come up in front and be seen as social workers, serving people
of all religions. If they insist to live in the past as in the Shah
Banoo case, or if they seem to be supporting SIMI, an ISI-financed
student organisation—no matter how wrongly—then they doom themselves
to being eternally marginalised. And they should not blame the
majority community. As Shakespeare might have said to Muslims, the
fault, dear sires, lies not in the majority but in yourselves that
you want to stay separate.

Turks are not less Islamic because the Ataturk threw out the
Caliphate and liberated Turkish women.

The Indonesians are not less Islamic because they continue to adhere
in many ways to their ancient Hindu traditions. They are not
hesitant to call their airlines Garuda Airlines; they are not
hesitant to give their children Sanskrit name like Meghavati or
Saraswati (a daughter of former President Waheed); nor are they
hesitant in putting the figure of Ganesh on their currency notes. An
Indonesian production of Ramayana would put some of our own Indian
artists to shame; but here in India a section of reactionary Muslims
refuse to sing even the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram because
somewhere down the line in the song there is a reference to Durga.
And Indonesia is 98 per cent Muslim!

If Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, a great Islamic scholar who had his
training in Islamic law and jurisprudence in the famous Islamic
University in Cairo, could respect Vande Mataram and stand to
attention when it was sung at AICC meetings, surely lesser Islamic
scholars can take a leaf from his book.

Many Muslim organisations increasingly seem to be taking their cue
from fundamentalist Islamic organisation in Pakistan. It is not
going to help them one bit and it is time they realise it. Muslims
should not consider themselves a minority. India is a democracy and
all citizens are equal. Hindus are not that stupid as to want to
hurt Islamic sentiments of Muslims. But we need to live under a
Common Law as citizens are equal in every way. For Muslims,
especially, separatism should be deeply abhorrent. It should be
shunned like the very devil.

We are one people and India, as Mohammad Iqbal once wrote belongs to
everyone, irrespective of caste, creed, religion or community. Sareh
jahan seh achcha Hindustan hamara should be our guiding mission.
Then everything will fall in its place and—who knows—the time may
come when under sound Muslim leadership, Hindus themselves may vote
for Muslims. Who, today, is our President? Who, our Prime Minister?
And who the leader of the Congress Party, oh?
http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?
name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=

150&page=12 ---
.....................................................................
....................................
http://www.blogs.ivarta.com/india-usa-blog-column168.htm
Indian Muslims: Dealing with Past
Mayank Patel

Across the world, Present generation grapples with past wrong
committed by previous generation. From South Africa to Germany and
from America to Australia, Most groups have acknowledged past
misdeeds and apologized for the suffering caused by their action
toward others. Thus, making genuine progress on path of truth and
reconciliation.

However, Indian Muslims have taken opposite path of denial,
distortion and deflection. They=2 0have received more than generous
help from allies like Marxist, Fabian Socialist, Islamist etc. who
are co-travelers on this path. In fact, it is the allies who have
encouraged and lead Indian Muslims on this path. On behalf of Indian
Muslims, Allies have used denial, distortion and deflection tactic
to justify even the most unjustifiable mistakes like partition.

Indian Muslim"s pro-partition role is proven beyond reasonable
doubt. 1945-46 Provincial Elections were fought on a single agenda
of partition. Partition became possible only because overwhelming
majority of Indian Muslims indirectly voted for it in that election.
Any objective analysis of current course and arguments favoring
course correction is usually greeted by an old tactic of shooting
the messenger. Three bullets are very popular with shooters.

First bullet is "Present Generation of Indian Muslims should not be
blamed for Partition". Shooter conveniently and cleverly presumes
non-existent intent behind analysis. This is absurd. A course
correction and acknowledgement of past generation"s mistake could
never imply culpability of present generation. On the contrary,
Acknowledgement would reassure all that apple has indeed fallen far
from the tree. This would strengthen trust, improve communal
relations and lead to reconciliation and closure.

Second bullet is much more lethal. It is "165 million strong Indian
Muslims cannot be wished away". Let me clarify, I=2 0would not wish
away anybody regardless of numerical strength. There is also certain
belligerence behind this quote. This virulent belligerence is quite
understandable if not agreeable. After all, Indian Muslims are 165
million strong and allies who have vice like grip over India"s
media, academia and politics are stronger. However, it does not
change the fact that current path of denial, distortion and
deflection could never lead to peace, truth and reconciliation. On
the contrary, The Logical end of this path is civic strife if not
civil war in which there are no winners and all losers.

Third bullet is the denial bullet. There are dozens of denial
bullets. One of the most popular Denial Bullet is silence
hypothesis. It claims that Indian Muslims are silent and allies who
claim to be speaking and acting on behalf of Indian Muslims are not
true representative of Indian Muslims. It further touts this alleged
silence as proof that there is no alliance and Indian Muslims
disagrees with current path of denial, deflection and distortion.
There are many holes in this hypothesis.

Firstly, Silence is not same as acknowledgement of past mistakes.
Secondly, there is no such thing as silent disagreement.
Disagreement is always vocal. On the Contrary, Agreement can often
lead to conspiracy of silence. Thus, Alleged Silence can never be
interpreted as a disagreement with current path. Finally, Indian
Muslims are speaking with their votes and participation in massi ve
political rallies. They consistently vote for allies who favor
denial path. In fact more an ally denies and asserts innocence of
terrorist outfits more vote it receives. These votes provide allies
a claim to speak and act on behalf of Indian Muslims.

The current path of denial is compounding past mistakes. More-over,
it makes Indian Muslims over reliant on Allies. This over reliance
is unhealthy and dangerous. Allies have their own ideological beef
against Hindus and have selfish interest is making matters worse.
There are many reasons for breaking the alliance and changing
course. Perhaps the best reason is to end a history of wrongdoing
and leave a legacy of honesty for future generation.

Related story:

Forgive, not Forget History @
http://indiaview.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/forgive-but-never-forget-%
e2%80%93-history/