Author: M V Kamath
Publication: The Free Press Journal
Date: November 15, 2001
First it began in Pakistan. Even
before partition formally took place, several million Hindus and Sikhs
left territory that had been formally marked out as Pakistan for safety
in India. How many millions were killed, injured and mutilated has never
been accurately accounted. Numberless women were raped or converted into
Islam. Today there are hardly any Hindus in Pakistan. Those who preferred
to stay on are mostly from the Scheduled Castes; a few families may have
continued to live to take care of family assets but they are few and far
between.
When the fundamentalists took charge
of the Vale of Kashmir the same story was repeated ad nauseam. Several
lakh Pundits wear forced to leave their homes behind and either settle
down in miserable shacks in Jammu or leave the state for securer places
in other parts of India. No attention is given to them. The displacement
of Hindu from Muslim-majority areas is presumed to be inevitable and par
for the course. Hindus are not allowed to stay on in Muslim majority areas
to worship their gods and live in peace with their neigbhours. When the
British Cabinet Mission came to India in March 1946 as far as possible
to save the unity of India, it was faced with Opposition from that Devil
Incarnate, Mohammad Ali Jinnahbhai. The Mission asked Jinnah: "Do you realise
that the Pakistan you are demanding will leave substantial Hindus under
Muslim domination?" Jinnah replied: "that will be so, but, I will leave
many more Muslims under Hindu domination in Hindustan". Surprised, the
Mission asked Jinnah: "Then how does it resolve Hindu-Muslim discord? It
will only perpetuate hostilities". Jinnah persisted in his muddled thinking.
He said: "I will free at least two-thirds Muslims from Hindu domination".
The Mission told him: "And you will put more than that number of Hindus
under Muslim domination. That is no solution".
Jinnah replied that "their best
protection will be the establishment of two strong state$, neither of which
will dare misbehave towards each other's minorities". The Mission asked:
"You mean to say that these minorities will be hostages?" To that Jinnah
said: "Exactly, If one state mistreats its minorities the other state will
retaliate against its minorities. It will be tit for tat. Fear is the most
potent weapon; I am sure the ruler in either state will be wise enough
to conduct themselves properly.
They will be' afraid of retaliation
against their co-religionists". This never happened. True, immediately
after and just prior to partition there were massacres on both sides. But
when the Pundits were driven out of Kashmir, there has been no retaliation
against Muslims in other parts of India. And now something more terrible
is happening. Hindus in their thousands are being pushed out of Bangla
Desh and there is not a word of protest - let alone retaliation - against
Muslims in India. The Bangaladeshis may be barbaric. Indeed they are, but
Hindus in India are more civilised. But how long has India to suffer from
religious terrorism and exclusivism in Bangladesh?
Trouble started soon after Khaleda
Zia of Bangaladesh Natioinalist Party came into power. The BNP scored a
landslide victory in the recently concluded elections, capturing 182 seats
on its own and 201 seats along with its fundamentalist Muslim allies like
the Jamaat-i-Islami. Once nominations are made for the 30 reserved women's
seats, which is the prerogative of the winning party, the BNP-Jammat-Islam
Oikiya Jote coalition will command two-thirds majority in the Bangladesh
Parliament and then God save the Hindus. It is suggested by the Kolkata-based
The Statesman (26 October) that Begum Zia's landlside victory 'is not an
honest reflection of the popular will as various forms of electoral and
administrative manipulations and fraud were resorted to in at least 50
seats". But that is no consolation. In any event while the Awami League's
share of votes steadily rose from 33.67 per cent in 1991 to 37.44 per cent
in 1996 to 40.02 in 2001, what is not stated is that this percentage included
the solid Hindu and other minority vote bank. The Awami League made some
mistakes too. It decided to fight the elections alone. It disgraced and
severed links with some of its allies like Kader Siddiqi. It also made
no attempt to woo the Leftists. The result is that while the Awami League
garnered as much as 40.02 per cent of the votes, the BNP which on its own
got only 37 per cent managed, with its fundamentalists allies to get 46.52
per cent-of the votes. That sounded the death knell of the Begum Hasina
brand of liberalism and secularism. Today it is not the founder of Bangladesh
Mujibhur Rehman who is remembered and adored, but Osama bin Laden. The
Mukti juddho is forgotten; so are the Awami League's Mukti joddahs (freedom
fighters). A Muslim backlash has taken place in Bangladesh. Maulana Fazlul
Haq Amini, founder of Razakars who had lost his deposit in 1996, this time
defeated his Awami League rival by 44,000 votes! And other despicable victor
was the Jamaat candidate Matiur Rahman Nizami who was chief of the Pakistan
Army-sponsored killer squad Al Badr! The refrain of the BNP-led coalition
was "Muslims must vote it to power as Sheikh Hasina of the Awami Lagueis
an agent of Hindustan and can't support Osama' bin Laden and our Islamic
cause". The result is there for all to see.
According to The Statesman "several
thousand persecuted Bangladeshi Hindus, Santhal adivasis, Buddhist and
Christians have sought refuge in West Bengal and Tripura in recent weeks".
Said the paper editorially (2 November): "New Delhi's concern is not misplaced
since for over a decade Tripura was home to about 60,000 Bangladesh chakma
refugees ... the extent of persecution which includes loot, arson and even
rape, has rendered lakhs homeless". Lakhs, let it be remembered, Not hundreds
or even thousands.
The Indian Prime Minister's National
Security Adviser, Brijesh Mishra called on Begum Khaleda Zia on 27 October
and was promised that' protection would be given to the Hindu and other
minorities. No one believes her. According to The Statesman (26 October)
Begum Zia "allowed the entry of staunch Islamists into her party who besides
being known for their pro-Pakistan leaning, were committed to bury the
liberation war and secularism for good'. The nature of Begum Zia's surrender
to the fundamentalists can be gauged from the fact that she surrendered
37 BNP seats to them, including one from where her sitting party MP had
been elected in four successive elections". That is Begum Zia. Within minutes
of taking charge of the government the BNP-led coalition replaced 13 Secretaries
of different Ministries and transferred 1,500 officials, including District
Magistrates, Superintendents of Police and officers in charge of thanas.
Those who replaced them were mostly BNP and Jamaat men who have made no
secret of their political affiliations. The result is a massive attack
on Hindus. According to The Hindu (5 November), "scores of men and women
have left their homes in Bangladesh and bundled up their belongings, to
sneak into the border districts of Malda, Uttar Dinajpur and Dakshshin
Dinajpur of West Bengal". On 6 November The Times of India quoted a refugee
as saying: "The situation (in Bangladesh) is frightening. In some of the
areas of Bangladesh where the Hindus are a minority and poor, the oppression
is maximum. If you pay them (the fundamentalists) you can buy peace. But
if you do not, then conversion of one's religion is the only way out".
The Kolkata-based The Telegraph (1 November) reported that "the nightmare
actually began on 13 October when two college-going girls of Balapukar
were picked up, raped and left to die ... Exactly a week later Kashidanga
(a village of 20 Hindus families) erupted in flames. The twenty Hindu families'
homes were looted and three women sought to be abducted". That is Begum
Khalida Zia's Bangladesh. Reports Kuldip Nayar in The Hitavada (24 October):
"Khaleda played the religious card ... Her equivocal stand on the Taliban
too paid her dividends in the election. But her poll alliance with the
Jamaat-I-Islami made it clear that she wanted to look more Islamic than
her opponents in a country which is predominantly Muslim. She may change
the constitution to facilitate the introduction of Islamic shariat as the
basis for legislation".
Some of our leftist intellectuals
have already begun to make excuses for Begum Khaleda saying that the BNP
is not basically anti-Indian that as one writer, Udayan Namboodiri, writing
in The Hindustan Times put it, "the economic backwardness of Bangladesh
is as much a security threat to India as is the flourishing jehad factory
in Pakistan." What is "basically friendly?" Is killing, looting setting
fires to Hindu homes and raping their womenfolk a sign of "basic friendliness"?
The Free Press Journal quoted a refugee as saving: "The ruling party (BNP)
cadres have formed 'assault groups' who intrude into residences" minorities
in the late hours, torture women, loot valuable and slash tongues of the
livestock". Another refugee has' been quoted as saying: "Hindus are not
allowed to withdraw money from banks or sell property. You need permission
front a BNP Minister to sell your land. Any Muslim who buys a Hindu's land
is punished. Hindus have to compulsorily take part in rallies brought out
in support of Osama bin Laden." It may suit our government to turn a blind
eye to all this. But some day this misty explode in its face. It is warned.
