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

[Yousuf]

Dear Aditya

Thanks for forwarding the Organizer article.

It is fallacious to assume that Muslims are not part of the mainstream. Firstly, what is mainstream? If it is some kind monolithic superhighway expecting everyone to follow a jet speed, then why does everyone need to enter it? In India, despite having such superhighways we still have bullock carts and camel carts slowly traversing all the wrong and right paths and no one minds. What I mean it, let us first define what is mainstream? 

Secondly, why does representations in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha become the yardstick of any community's progress? That's really absurd. How about the representation in business, corporations, health sector, education, arts, sciences, music, literature, media, motor mechanics, academics, manufacturing, civil services, sports? Is there any sector among the above which is not represented by Muslims? In some of them in fact, they have done exceptionally well. Yes, their proportions maybe less than what it should be, but there are several reasons for it: (A) They certainly need to do better than what they have done so far, and (B) there is some amount of bias in corporations and other institutions against Muslims (please don't get wild on this - its a well-known fact). But yes, even that bias can be fought if you struggle harder.

It is stupidity again to assume that you are mainstream only if you can sing Vande Matram. No one should be forced to prove one's love for the mother land simply by singing a poem. My children and many other Muslim children in Delhi happily go to mainstream schools where they start the day with Hindu prayers, and I don't mind that. Prophet Muhammad has said that to love your mother land is a sign of faith (Iman). So, loving your country is part of religion too for Muslims. But unfortunately, the media (such as Organizer) will never highlight such positive aspects of the community.

I believe in (and agree with) India's constitution, which I hope every mainstream Indian does. The constitution defines India as a secular country, and gives everyone the right to follow their own religion, culture, language and norms. Singing Vande Matram (as far as I know) is not an essential item in the constitution. Through that song, you can pledge your love and respect to the country. If I want to express my love and respect to Mother India in Urdu, Bengali or Kannada, I have the right to do that (because expressing something in your mother tongue brings out your emotions better). If I find Vande Mataram's sanskrit too difficult to follow, why can't I sing a similar song in Assamese for instance? Many "Muslim" schools in India start their day with Iqbal's Sare jahan se achchha - can that song be considered less in patriotism than Vande Mataram? 

Also, having a Muslim President or vice-president or Prime Minister is the least of Muslims' concern today. It does not mean anything. It is the middle level secretariat that runs the govt and this country. That's the sector that needs reforms and a better representation of all communities. 

Yousuf Saeed

(Sorry, I didn't mean to write all this to you Aditya - I know you only forwarded the message - but it is meant for everyone).





--- On Mon, 10/20/08, Aditya Raj Kaul <kauladityaraj at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Aditya Raj Kaul <kauladityaraj at gmail.com>
> Subject: [Reader-list] When will Muslims join the mainstream?
> To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
> Date: Monday, October 20, 2008, 2:46 PM
> 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/
> _________________________________________
> reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
> Critiques & Collaborations
> To subscribe: send an email to
> reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject
> header.
> To unsubscribe:
> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
> List archive:
> &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com