Author: Prafull Goradia
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: May 12, 2003
The goings on regarding the Ram
Janmabhoomi illustrate the paradox of the Indian minority. The proponents
of the Babri Masjid have consistently claimed that the land upon which
the structure stood was a property dispute which only the law courts were
qualified to decide. Now when the Government of India has requested the
Supreme Court to deal with the Ayodhya dispute expeditiously, the proponents
have opposed the action of the GOI. This contradiction of wanting justice,
and wanting to delay it, demonstrates a deeper paradox.
The minority is normally a much
smaller group than the rest of the country and therefore deserves safeguards
for its survival and welfare. The Jews in Europe are a classic example
of a minority. Over the last several decades, the Muslims have also gained
recognition as a minority in France, England, Belgium, Holland. Germany
too has a significant Muslim population, which has not been recognised
as citizenry.
Between waves of immigration and
a notable number of blacks converting in order to register their separate
identity from the white population, the US has also a fair number of this
minority. As elsewhere in the West, the minority is small in number and
weak in social resources. Little wonder foreign analysts apply the same
benchmark in measuring the minority in India. What, however, is unfortunate
is that indigenous analysts blindly use the same yardstick.
Little do they realise that neither
the Parsees nor the Jews feel that they are minorities. The Christians,
although more in number, have never thought of being a separate nation.
There have never been Hindu-Christian riots. The only minority in India
are therefore the Muslims who are neither small nor weak. They were the
rulers of India for centuries. For a greater part of this period, India
was looked upon by the Muslims the world over as a Dar-ul Islam. It was
only with the exile of Bahadurshah in 1858 that it was declared that the
country had now become a Dar-ul Harb.
Through the medieval period, the
Muslims population might not have exceeded 10 per cent. Yet they were the
first class citizens and the Hindus were looked upon as zimmis. In many
areas for several centuries, they also had to pay jaziya in order to avert
forced conversion. In contrast, in almost every country in Europe, Muslims
are having to struggle to get cemeteries with eternal graves, as distinct
from recyclable ones. They have to seek permission to celebrate Id-ul-Zuha
with the help of animal sacrifice.
In Germany, only the mosques can
be used to sacrifice animals. In Belgium, only sheep or lamb can be slaughtered
and the residue like skin and bone should be packed in municipality supplied
disposal bags. Often girls are not allowed to attend school with head scarves.
Nor are government employees always allowed to wear a beard.
Imagine a provence of France or
a lander of Germany or a state of the US being made to secede in order
to satisfy the Islamic propensity for separatism. India had to give up
a fourth of itself in 1947 to assuage its Muslims. A whole new state was
carved out so that the Muslim League led by MA Jinnah could take with them
the Indian ummah. The Qaid-e-Azam was anxious to ensure that his followers
did not have to suffer the expulsion of the Turks in Greece and Bulgaria
soon after World War I. For a man educated in England, Jinnah probably
remembered the legendry ill treatment meted out to the Moors and the Mozarabs
when the Catholic royalty wanted to revive Christian rule in Spain. Edicts
were issued in the 15th century whereby the Muslims were asked either to
get baptised, or face expulsion or be killed.
The Muslim-wakfs, between them,
are even today the largest urban land owners in India. These tracts of
real estate were the fruit of expropriation during the medieval period.
Article 44 of the Constitution, which directed that India should have a
common civil code, has remained ignored. As Ambedkar had pointed out, the
crux of the code contained Islamic laws of marriage, divorce and succession.
In all other laws including criminal code, the minority was allowed choices.
The criminal code of the shariat was ignored.
However, when Shah Bano was awarded
an alimony under this very same law by the Supreme Court in 1986, the judgement
was overturned with the help of the Muslim Women's Bill. This was not the
first time the apex court was treated with contempt. The AMU was adjudged
a Government institution by the Supreme Court in 1968. Soon thereafter
the Congress overturned the verdict by having a law passed which made it
a minority institution.
