[Reader-list] What if Jaswant was a Muslim

[Kshmendra Kaul]

Dear Javed
 
The poser (alone) "What if Jaswant was a Muslim" is (in my opinion) not only interesting but important.
 
It is surprising that it has not come up prominently in the analyses and debates around Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah (as far as I know).
 
Kshmendra

--- On Sat, 8/22/09, Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com> wrote:


From: Javed <javedmasoo at gmail.com>
Subject: [Reader-list] What if Jaswant was a Muslim
To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Saturday, August 22, 2009, 9:18 AM


From: "Sherwani Mustafa" <sherwanimk at yahoo.com>

‘Mr. Jaswant Singh! What if you were a Muslim? –Dr. M.K.Sherwani

************ ********* ********* ********* ***

     The real motive of Mr. Jaswant Singh in praising Jinah and
asserting that Muslims in India were treated as ‘aliens’
notwithstanding, he deserves all praise for bringing this reality
before  full public glare. Demonizing Jinah, it is a historical fact,
was a conspiracy hatched by Nehru and Patel to put the entire blame
of partition on Muslims of India , so as to project them as a
hallucination for unifying the divergent Hindu society. The Congress
was successful in this venture and kept Muslims under psychological
fear so that they would resign themselves to their subordinate status
in Indian polity. It was the reason of this ugly legacy that political
assertion by Muslims has always been branded as their pre-partition
mindset. The Congress experiment was so successful that different
so-called secular parties which emerged during the course of time
also deliberately followed this experiment so as to perpetuate the
Muslim status as a vote bank. Its impact  was so pernicious that the
whole concept of ‘secularism’ has come to revolve around it directly
or indirectly, and the community has always remained content with the
false promises of ‘security’. Parties may come and go, Muslims may
rush from one to another, but their fortune is unlikely to change
except for a few doles off and on.

              Mr. Jaswant Singh is fortunate that he is not a Muslim
otherwise  he would have been prosecuted for sedition or associated
with ‘Lashkare-Toiba.’ To make the point specific, I am producing my
own article which had expressed almost the similar views, and the
consequence was the 15 years ordeal with criminal prosecution under
sections 124a( sedition) of Indian Penal Code. The fact itself speaks
of how Muslims have been looked upon with suspicious eyes.

( This article was published  in Radiance Viewsweekly , Delhi in 28
October- 3 November,1984 issue. On the basis of this article , the
Government of India launched in 1985, criminal proceedings under
sections 124a (sedition) and 505(b)  of Indian Penal Code. The
Criminal case (State  VS Ameenul  Hasan Rizvi and others) numbering
159 of 1985 continued at Tees Hazari Courts, Delhi till 25 July, 2000
.Besides myself, the other two accused were  the editor, Syed Ameenul
Hasan Razvi  and Printer, Mohammad Iqbal Warakwala. After the
acquittal , I wrote a book ‘SECUALR  HORROR -  A TRUE STORY OF
FIFTEEN YEAR ORDEAL WITH  INDIAN SECULARISM’ in which I  narrated my
harrowing experiences  during the trial of the case. It was published
in 2002 by Pharos Media  and Publishing Pvt. Ltd., D-84, Abul Fazal
Enclave,1, Jamia Nagar, New Delhi ,25. (<www.milligazette. com>online
bookstore)



Dr. Mustafa Kamal Sherwani, LL.D.

Chairman,All India Muslim Forum, Lucknow , India

sherwanimk at yahoo. com

************ ********* ********* ********* ***

Secularism    vis-à-vis Hindu Chauvinism

************ ********* ********* *

     When we talk of secularism  it does not denote the meaning  and
definition  of a particular system  which carries the same connotation
and practice in all the states, characterized  by this word. What the
essence of the word ‘secularism’ is, depends  upon a variety of
factors  existing  in a particular state , e.g.  the composition of
the society , the potentiality of  the minority groups and the
prevailing international circumstances. To my mind the concept of
secularism  presupposes  the existence of more than  one religious
entities  otherwise  there can be nothing  towards which the state
may show a secular outlook.

             Human history has made it abundantly clear  and a
free-lance  thinker does admit  that some societies adopt  secularism
in  a real sense  of the word  without any fluctuations, and  some
have to adopt it reluctantly  just for the sake of a safe survival  in
the international community. For example, the  Islamic secularism ,
though in the contemporary parlance termed as  theocracy, is the real
manifestation  of what the secularism  in fact signifies, because it
envisages a real responsibility  of the majority community  towards
the religious freedom  and social and economic protection  of all the
religious groups. One may easily witness this secularism  in all the
states which have been declared  as Islamic  Republic. The  other
category is very well represented  by our Indian  secularism  which in
practice is  nothing short of Hinduism, and which in  turn is  the
synonym of  Indian nationalism.

Shrewd Via Media

        In this context , if we dispassionately  analyze the  reasons
which  compelled our national leaders , including a staunch  Hindu
like Mr. Patel, to adopt secularism ,and  tolerate in India, such a
large number of Muslims, especially when the country was partitioned
on Hindu-Muslim basis , and Pakistan was declared a Muslim state , we
may easily conclude that it was on account of circumstantial
constraints  and not a voluntary act. Our national leaders were well
aware of the fact  that there are so much inherent  contradictions in
the Hindu society  that it was not and  can never be  united by
common  fundamental religious principles, and , therefore,  the only
device to introduce  a certain spirit of coherence in it  was the
hypothetical  deterrence of Muslim  domination.

               Thus ever since independence , the communal riots were
engineered  with twin objectives, i.e. the subjugation of Muslims  and
the initiation of the process  of unification amongst Hindus.As
regards secularism, it rather thrust itself  upon the leaders  because
India as a declared  Hindu state  could never survive  in the
international community for two reasons. Firstly, Hinduism is a
territorial concept, and as a religion has nothing to offer in the
international arena  in order to compete with other dominant
religious philosophies of  the world, i.e. Islam and  Christianity,
and secondly,  as a theocratic state  it could not survive  in the
wake of the overwhelming  Muslim population and  the oil-rich  Islamic
states in the world. Thus, the only  way open to our national leaders
was to discover  a shrewd via media  which could, on the one hand,
make Hindu philosophy as the  salient feature of  the Indian
administration,  and ,on the other, use the pretext of secularism  to
show its credentials in the outside world.

        It was from this viewpoint that  secularism was adopted  as a
hypocritical measure , and the nationalism was sought to be
interpreted  in the context of Hinduism. As a part of this strategy,
the Muslim culture was gradually sought to be eliminated , though
religious freedom to the extent of prayer  was accorded, and  the
Muslims were looked upon  with suspicious eyes  as the symbol of
disruptive forces  and anti-national elements. Whenever there are
reports of  conversions  of Hindus to Islam in a voluntary manner – a
practice which is guaranteed by  the Constitution – a lot of hue and
cry is  raised against it , saying that the foundations of Indian
secularism  are based upon the Hindu majority. Besides,  in every
department and  at every place , there is so much depiction of  Hindu
culture, either by way of idols of gods  and goddesses  or otherwise ,
that even a cursory glance  makes one believe  that India  is not a
secular but  a Hindu state.

          In other words, what is done  by a Hindu or  under the
nomenclature of  Hinduism, howsoever anti-national it may be , is
brought within the precincts of nationalism, but whatever is done by a
Muslim , howsoever replete with nationalism it may  be,  is bound to
be branded as  anti-national : thus leading to an inevitable
conclusion  that nationalism and Hinduism  are the two facets of one
single phenomenon , and communalism and anti-nationalism  are the
inseparable ramifications of Islam.

          Muslim heroes are always condemned  as foreign invaders, and
Hindus who revolted against  the well-established  Muslim
administrations  are heralded as nationalists  who gave up their lives
for the preservation of Indian nationalism. If the South Indian Hindus
oppose Hindi , it is a regional problem, and if a Muslim does it , he
is a communal element. If Professor  Vasudeo Singh  vociferously
criticizes his own  party’s decision  about Urdu, he remains as much
faithful to the party and the nation as ever, but if a Muslim Minister
or legislator  even praises the government’s decision  in this regard,
it is interpreted  by the persons like Mr. Balraj Madhok  as the
Muslims’ reversion to  the pre-partition  policies.

           If the Hindus of South  burn the effigy of Ram  and worship
Ravan, it is nothing but the regional differences  in Hindu rituals ,
but if a Muslim makes  even a fair comment in these sensitive matters
, it is his attempt at destroying  the Hindu culture. If Hindu
scholars  produce misleading historical facts  to convince the masses
that Taj Mahal and Qutub Minar  were built by Hindu rulers, they are
praised  for their wonderful research work, but  if a Muslim dares to
present  the correct picture , he is pooh-poohed  as the supporter of
those  who allegedly  ruined the Hindu society  and its culture.

         If the same trends continue, the time is not far off , when
shocked by  the  overwhelming  rush of Hindu  devotees  to the mazars
of Muslim sufis , some  brilliant Hindu scholar  may startle the
nation  by proving through his  astonishing research work  that the
great saints  like Khwaja  Moinuddin  Chishti of Ajmer, Hazrat
Nizamuddin Auliya  of Delhi , Haji Waris Ali Shah  of Deva, Hazrat
Shah  Mina of Lucknow and many others  were in fact Hindus  and their
names were changed  under the Muslim rule.

             Apart from the above , the developments in Punjab may
well establish  that the sophisticated arms  allowed into golden
temple  and nothing else done  by the Sikhs  was termed as  a
separatist or secessionist  activity  till the time  they did not
vehemently  assert  that they are non-Hindus . Once the government was
convinced  that by saying that  Sikhism was  totally distinct from
Hinduism, the Sikhs really  mean business , the separatist tendencies
could no longer be tolerated . Paradoxically , the government and
Hindu masses  are still bent upon  inculcating into the minds of Sikhs
that they are Hindus , and their secessionist trends are being
brushed aside  as a momentary aberration  of one of the two  real
brothers  against  the other.

            Not only this , the dismissal of Farooq Abdullah’s
ministry  was hailed all  over  the country , and the opposition
parties raised voice  against it  just for the namesake, because
fortunately or  unfortunately, he happened  to be a Muslim. This may
just be contrasted  with the similar fortune  of Mr. N.T.Rama Rao
which triggered off the nation wide outcry, resulting into his
reinstatement. The controversial  and the most sensitive cow tallow
scandal  was hushed up and given a silent burial  as the persons
involved in it  were the Hindus , the great devotees of cow. God
forbid, had there been even the remotest  association  of Muslims in
it , the country would have certainly  witnessed  nation wide
communal riots.

           In view of the above facts, no impartial observer can evade
the logical  conclusion that  under the garb of secularism, India is
a Hindu state, and  Hinduism is a symbol of nationalism . Therefore,
it is my  humble suggestion  that either  India be declared  a Hindu
state  or secularism  must be observed  and practised  in its letter
and spirit.
_________________________________________
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/>