Author: A Surya Prakash
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: February 8, 2003
Over the last fortnight, I have
had the opportunity to read the views of two fellow citizens, both of whom
happen to be Muslims, on post-Gujarat Hindu-Muslim relations. The first
is Communal Rage in Secular India, the latest offering from Dr Rafiq Zakaria,
a prolific writer and one of India's noted scholars. The second, an article
by Mr Salman Kurshid-a former Union Minister, a man with notable academic
and political credentials and the head of the Congress's Policy Planning
and Coordination Department-in a leading national daily.
Dr Zakaria begins his narration
with the harrowing tales from Gujarat where, last year, hundreds of Muslims
were lynched in the post-Godhra riots. It can be argued that a scholar
like him need not have lent credibility to some of the reports quoted by
him, but the point to note is that he has not allowed anger to get the
better of reason. Bringing to bear all the objectivity that is humanly
possible, he talks of the growing cleavage between Hindus and Muslims in
India and offers a set of prescriptions with a candidness that can only
come to a sincere and concerned citizen.
On the other hand, Mr Kurshid, a
reasonable man by all accounts and a key member of the Congress's thinktank,
betrays the current confusion in his party in regard to its political response
to Godhra and its aftermath. He is so unwilling to diagnose the problem
that he incapacitates himself when it comes to offering solutions.
As stated in an earlier column,
a disturbing trend that has surfaced post-Godhra is that the process of
desecularisation of the Hindus has begun. The deafening silence of the
Hindu middle class all over the country to the tragedy that befell the
Muslims of Gujarat 11 months ago was the first clear signal indicating
the weakening of the secular resolve among Hindus. In fact, this signal
from the Hindu middle class was so strong that it forced Prime Minister
Atal Bihari Vajpayee and the BJP leadership to let Chief Minister Narendra
Modi be. As a result, Mr Modi continued in office in Gandhinagar despite
accusations of bias and non- governance, and eventually romped home with
a two-thirds majority in the State elections.
The survival of Mr Modi from March
to December 2002 is unique. It is difficult to find another example in
post-Independence history where a Chief Minister has survived in office
after such largescale rioting and the adverse reportage and editorial comments
in the English media that came in its wake. The only explanation for this
is that, this time round, there was no middle class (read Hindu middle
class) pressure to sack Mr Modi.
Dr Zakaria's sensitive antenna appears
to have picked up this signal because he says after the Gujarat carnage:
"Indian Muslims must open their eyes to the ground reality that an increasing
number of Hindus have begun to hate them." Flowing out of this analysis
is his advice to Muslims: "Indian Muslims must now see the light of the
day and move in a different direction. They must discard their worn-out
prejudices and outmoded habits and adjust themselves to the requirements
of the changing times."
In order to survive, they must learn
to stand on their own feet. For the fact is that they have no true friends;
many of those who show them sympathy or consideration are not sincere.
They do so only to obtain electoral gain.
Having been a Minister in Congress
Governments in Maharastra for long years and later deputy leader of the
Congress Parliamentary Party, Dr Zakaria has been in the thick of politics
for long years. In his book, he is rather bitter about the attitude of
Muslim political leaders. "Instead of coming out openly against Pakistan
and taking a strong stand against the jihadis, these so-called guardians
of Indian Muslims spend most of their time in running their own political
shops to buttress their communal leadership." He suggests Muslims tread
a new path and take the lead to bury this pernicious two-nation doctrine
and work to unite with Hindus. "They must, without compromising the Quranic
injunctions, agree to the introduction of certain much-needed, essential
changes in their personal law, particularly the enactment of monogamy;
this will bring them on par with non- Muslims."
While Dr Zakaria has this reformist
prescription, Mr Khurshid has nothing to say to either community. "If Hindus
want to live their life in a particular manner, and they can collectively
decide that, Muslims would not be affected. Similarly, if Muslims want
to live their lives differently, Hindus have no reason to worry. Neither
community can expect the other to change their preferences to suit their
views."
What are we to make of this? If
Hindus live the way they want and the Muslims the way they want, how can
we constitute one rashtra? Sadly, Mr Khurshid does not seem to think that
there is a middle secular space which all communities should occupy. Though
dealing with a sensitive problem, Dr Zakaria decides to go where others
fear to tread and this includes demographic fears in the Hindu mind, polygamy
and Vande Mataram. Dr Zakaria says the controversy over the singing of
the Vande Mataram by Muslims is meaningless. It was sung by all Muslims
leaders, belonging to the Congress, during the freedom struggle. Those
Muslims, who do not want to sing it, may not but they must stand up when
it is sung-why add hurt to an already worsening inter-communal relationship?
Touching on population growth and
polygamy, he says, "Hindus are also piqued by the fact that Muslims are
multiplying fast, much more than Hindus. The census figures, decade after
decade, confirm it. The two major causes for this disparity are said to
be, first, that a Muslim can have four wives at a time and, secondly, his
reluctance on religious grounds to adopt family planning."
Quoting the Census Commissioner
and Registrar General, Dr Zakaria shows that the incidence of polygamous
marriages is highest among tribals followed by Buddhists, Jains, caste
Hindus and Muslims. In other words, a majority of Muslims do not practise
polygamy either because of modern influences or simply because they do
not have the economic strength to do so. Dr Zakaria exposes the futility
of the approach of Muslim leaders which has only resulted in imprinting
a polygamous Muslim stereotype in the Hindu mind. On family planning, Dr
Zakaria says, "It cannot be denied that Muslims have not taken to it as
seriously as Hindus; this has to be corrected."
As against Dr Zakaria's considered
opinion on this sensitive issue, Mr Khurshid appears to have shut his mind
to any change or reform because he says, "In Islam, it is true that four
marriages are permissible-but under very strict injunction of emotional,
physical and financial equality." Further, he says he "wouldn't lose much
sleep over that because everyone knows polygamy is not an issue". Who is
this "everyone" he is talking about?
Finally, here is the clincher from
Mr Khurshid: "It is too late in the day to get anybody to give up his or
her cultural aspirations. Freedom once known is not easily surrendered!"
This betrays a hands-off approach that comes easily to politicians whose
vision is limited to constituencies, elections and votes.
Should the Congress buy Mr Khurshid's
line, it will be stuck in a status quoist rut that will harm it in the
series of electoral battles that lie ahead this year and the next. On the
other hand, if it lends an ear to Dr Zakaria, the voice of reason and reform,
it can overcome its post-Gujarat despondency and come to grips with the
dynamics of contemporary politics.
Similarly, the BJP, the other key
player at the national level, and some of the influential regional players
in the ruling coalition at the Centre, must seek out erudite, well-meaning
citizens like Dr Zakaria and evolve a plan to restore Hindu- Muslim unity
and usher in genuine secularism.
