03-14-2006, 01:00 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Secular India, Muslim veto </b>
Pioneer.com
A Surya Prakash
<b>The sudden escalation in Muslim communal politics over the past couple of months leading up to attacks on Hindu congregations and shrines has brought back memories of the extremely divisive rhetoric of the 1940s that led to India's partition. It has also once again shown up the phenomenal influence of religious extremists on the Muslim mind and the near incapacity of moderates within the community to rein in the hotheads</b>.
There is little doubt that the prevailing political environment has been conducive for the growth of Muslim communalism with the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance at the Centre succumbing to pressures from minority groups and the Left parties and initiating desperate measures to woo the Muslim vote - the most disturbing venture being the attempt to take a Muslim head count in the armed forces.
Thanks to some timely intervention, this dangerous initiative has been aborted, at least for now, but the danger is far from over. Encouraged by pseudo-secular politics, Muslim politicians and clerics have organised huge rallies in several cities in recent weeks ostensibly to protest against America's policies and the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper. <b>These protests have ended in attacks on Hindu business establishments.</b>
Side by side, there is evidence of a home-grown variety of terrorism with Indian Muslims getting involved in terrorist attacks on Hindu shrines and establishments. Taken together, the message is loud and clear - either tailor India's foreign policy to the Muslim view point or face the music. In short, the Muslims must have veto power, just as they did prior to partition and Muslim interests must override Indian interests.
To begin with, it all looks almost innocuous and seemingly reasonable. After all what is wrong in the Muslims of India protesting against closer Indo-US ties ? Is not one entitled in a democracy to speak one's mind ? The partition of India along communal lines also had its origins in such democratic logic, until it was fuelled by politics. That is why we need to look back at the history of appeasement. For example, the seeds of separate representation for Muslims in legislatures in the sub-continent were sown in the Indian Councils Act of 1892. BR Ambedkar, the architect of our Constitution, was of the view that this was introduced by the Viceroy Lord Dufferin to wean away Muslims from the Congress party, which had been launched a few years earlier.
However, though the idea emanated from the British, the Muslims were quick to realise the value of separate political rights. Consequently, when the next round of reform of the Legislative Councils was contemplated in 1909, the Muslims placed a long list of demands before the British. New demands emerged in 1916 leading to what is known as the Lucknow Pact between the Hindus and Muslims. Some years hence, Jinnah, the architect of Pakistan, put forth a long list of demands on behalf of the Muslim League when the Simon Commission was appointed. He wanted "adequate share" for Muslims in all the services and in self-governing bodies and separate electorates for Muslims in all regions of the country.
All these demands were conceded in 1932 but that was not the end of the story. Jinnah wanted more a few years hence. Among these new demands were the following : Vande Mataram should be given up, Urdu should become the national language and the tricolour should be changed or the flag of the Muslim League should be given equal importance. One more preposterous than the other you would think but that was how Jinnah played his cards.
Ambedkar, while reflecting on these demands in his book `Thoughts on Pakistan' said that with this new list, which included a demand for 50 per cent share in everything (even though the Muslims constituted just 25 per cent of the population in undivided India), "there is no knowing where the Muslims are going to stop in their demands". In this catalogue of new demands there are some which on the face of them are extravagant and impossible he said adding that <b>"the Muslims are now speaking the language of Hitler and claiming a place in the sun which Hitler has been claiming for Germany"</b> Eventually Jinnah played his trump card. He demanded a separate Islamic State.
<b>Unfortunately, even the creation of Pakistan has not settled the issue.</b> Competitive minorityism has once again raised its head in India and has begun to negate core constitutional ideals. <b>Lord Dufferin gave Muslims the right to communal representation just to keep them away from the Congress Party. </b>Today, the Congress Party is ready to disturb the secular character of the Indian Army and offer communal reservations in services just to retain the Muslim vote. Meanwhile, parties like the Samajwadi Party have no qualms in flaunting a minister like Haji Yaqoob Qureshi.
Prior to partition, Ambedkar advised the Congress Party to abandon the policy of appeasement. "The Congress has failed to realise that the policy of concession has increased their (Muslim) aggressiveness and what is worse, the Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler". He therefore felt that the creation of the separate Islamic state of Pakistan could be a settlement that could end the Hindu-Muslim problem in the sub-continent.
Ambedkar however failed to gauge the damage that pseudo-secularism and minorityism would do to the idea of a free, secular, democratic India. Ambedkar presumed that the creation of Pakistan would result in a fairly comprehensive exchange of population. Consequently, ".....it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquility of a settlement to the insecurity of a growing political appetite shown by the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus".
This was a miscalculation on Ambedkar's part because he failed to gauge the impact of democracy and demography on the trajectory of Muslim politics after India became a secular, democratic republic. Of the total Indian population of 336 million on the eve of partition, the Muslim population was 77 million. Of this, 47 million became citizens of Pakistan and the remaining 30 million stayed back in India. The Muslim population in India has since risen five fold to touch 150 million today and the pursuit of Muslim votes among political parties is leading India to a situation where in the Muslims will once again begin to exercise their veto in all matters including the country's defence and foreign policies.
The pseudo-secular environment created by political parties in their effort to woo the burgeoning Muslim vote has emboldened the emergence of a new leadership among Muslims which is demanding that the country's policies be skewed to Muslim interests. Since Muslims hate Mr George Bush and America, India should not befriend the Americans.
Similarly, since Muslims empathise with Iraq and Iran, India's foreign policy should follow suit. If you heard the speeches made at these public meetings on the eve of President Bush's visit, <b>you would think you are in an Islamic state in which the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists etc constitute a hopeless minority.</b> According to Ambedkar, <b>"Muslim politicians do not recognise secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus". </b>This he said over 60 years ago.
Going by the vituperative attacks on the US President in Muslim rallies, the open support of rallyists to someone like Osama Bin Laden and the conduct of Haji Yaqoob Qureshi, <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>it appears nothing has changed over the last six decades. Muslim politics remains static. The liberal, secular, democratic environment that has prevailed in India after independence appears to have had no impact on the community's politicians. Where does this leave democratic India? Will history repeat itself? These are worrying thoughts indeed.</span> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Pioneer.com
A Surya Prakash
<b>The sudden escalation in Muslim communal politics over the past couple of months leading up to attacks on Hindu congregations and shrines has brought back memories of the extremely divisive rhetoric of the 1940s that led to India's partition. It has also once again shown up the phenomenal influence of religious extremists on the Muslim mind and the near incapacity of moderates within the community to rein in the hotheads</b>.
There is little doubt that the prevailing political environment has been conducive for the growth of Muslim communalism with the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance at the Centre succumbing to pressures from minority groups and the Left parties and initiating desperate measures to woo the Muslim vote - the most disturbing venture being the attempt to take a Muslim head count in the armed forces.
Thanks to some timely intervention, this dangerous initiative has been aborted, at least for now, but the danger is far from over. Encouraged by pseudo-secular politics, Muslim politicians and clerics have organised huge rallies in several cities in recent weeks ostensibly to protest against America's policies and the cartoons of Prophet Mohammed published in a Danish newspaper. <b>These protests have ended in attacks on Hindu business establishments.</b>
Side by side, there is evidence of a home-grown variety of terrorism with Indian Muslims getting involved in terrorist attacks on Hindu shrines and establishments. Taken together, the message is loud and clear - either tailor India's foreign policy to the Muslim view point or face the music. In short, the Muslims must have veto power, just as they did prior to partition and Muslim interests must override Indian interests.
To begin with, it all looks almost innocuous and seemingly reasonable. After all what is wrong in the Muslims of India protesting against closer Indo-US ties ? Is not one entitled in a democracy to speak one's mind ? The partition of India along communal lines also had its origins in such democratic logic, until it was fuelled by politics. That is why we need to look back at the history of appeasement. For example, the seeds of separate representation for Muslims in legislatures in the sub-continent were sown in the Indian Councils Act of 1892. BR Ambedkar, the architect of our Constitution, was of the view that this was introduced by the Viceroy Lord Dufferin to wean away Muslims from the Congress party, which had been launched a few years earlier.
However, though the idea emanated from the British, the Muslims were quick to realise the value of separate political rights. Consequently, when the next round of reform of the Legislative Councils was contemplated in 1909, the Muslims placed a long list of demands before the British. New demands emerged in 1916 leading to what is known as the Lucknow Pact between the Hindus and Muslims. Some years hence, Jinnah, the architect of Pakistan, put forth a long list of demands on behalf of the Muslim League when the Simon Commission was appointed. He wanted "adequate share" for Muslims in all the services and in self-governing bodies and separate electorates for Muslims in all regions of the country.
All these demands were conceded in 1932 but that was not the end of the story. Jinnah wanted more a few years hence. Among these new demands were the following : Vande Mataram should be given up, Urdu should become the national language and the tricolour should be changed or the flag of the Muslim League should be given equal importance. One more preposterous than the other you would think but that was how Jinnah played his cards.
Ambedkar, while reflecting on these demands in his book `Thoughts on Pakistan' said that with this new list, which included a demand for 50 per cent share in everything (even though the Muslims constituted just 25 per cent of the population in undivided India), "there is no knowing where the Muslims are going to stop in their demands". In this catalogue of new demands there are some which on the face of them are extravagant and impossible he said adding that <b>"the Muslims are now speaking the language of Hitler and claiming a place in the sun which Hitler has been claiming for Germany"</b> Eventually Jinnah played his trump card. He demanded a separate Islamic State.
<b>Unfortunately, even the creation of Pakistan has not settled the issue.</b> Competitive minorityism has once again raised its head in India and has begun to negate core constitutional ideals. <b>Lord Dufferin gave Muslims the right to communal representation just to keep them away from the Congress Party. </b>Today, the Congress Party is ready to disturb the secular character of the Indian Army and offer communal reservations in services just to retain the Muslim vote. Meanwhile, parties like the Samajwadi Party have no qualms in flaunting a minister like Haji Yaqoob Qureshi.
Prior to partition, Ambedkar advised the Congress Party to abandon the policy of appeasement. "The Congress has failed to realise that the policy of concession has increased their (Muslim) aggressiveness and what is worse, the Muslims interpret these concessions as a sign of defeatism on the part of the Hindus and the absence of will to resist. This policy of appeasement will involve the Hindus in the same fearful situation in which the allies found themselves as a result of the policy of appeasement which they adopted towards Hitler". He therefore felt that the creation of the separate Islamic state of Pakistan could be a settlement that could end the Hindu-Muslim problem in the sub-continent.
Ambedkar however failed to gauge the damage that pseudo-secularism and minorityism would do to the idea of a free, secular, democratic India. Ambedkar presumed that the creation of Pakistan would result in a fairly comprehensive exchange of population. Consequently, ".....it will do away with this constant need of appeasement and ought to be welcomed by all those who prefer the peace and tranquility of a settlement to the insecurity of a growing political appetite shown by the Muslims in their dealings with the Hindus".
This was a miscalculation on Ambedkar's part because he failed to gauge the impact of democracy and demography on the trajectory of Muslim politics after India became a secular, democratic republic. Of the total Indian population of 336 million on the eve of partition, the Muslim population was 77 million. Of this, 47 million became citizens of Pakistan and the remaining 30 million stayed back in India. The Muslim population in India has since risen five fold to touch 150 million today and the pursuit of Muslim votes among political parties is leading India to a situation where in the Muslims will once again begin to exercise their veto in all matters including the country's defence and foreign policies.
The pseudo-secular environment created by political parties in their effort to woo the burgeoning Muslim vote has emboldened the emergence of a new leadership among Muslims which is demanding that the country's policies be skewed to Muslim interests. Since Muslims hate Mr George Bush and America, India should not befriend the Americans.
Similarly, since Muslims empathise with Iraq and Iran, India's foreign policy should follow suit. If you heard the speeches made at these public meetings on the eve of President Bush's visit, <b>you would think you are in an Islamic state in which the Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists etc constitute a hopeless minority.</b> According to Ambedkar, <b>"Muslim politicians do not recognise secular categories of life as the basis of their politics because to them it means the weakening of the community in its fight against the Hindus". </b>This he said over 60 years ago.
Going by the vituperative attacks on the US President in Muslim rallies, the open support of rallyists to someone like Osama Bin Laden and the conduct of Haji Yaqoob Qureshi, <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>it appears nothing has changed over the last six decades. Muslim politics remains static. The liberal, secular, democratic environment that has prevailed in India after independence appears to have had no impact on the community's politicians. Where does this leave democratic India? Will history repeat itself? These are worrying thoughts indeed.</span> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->