|
The
Muslim rule and its contributions in the socio-political and
economic spheres have been dumped to make way for phoney
accusations that widen the Hindu-Muslim gulf further.
What sells best in India? You are mistaken if your answer is
other than ‘religion.’ Posters, blowups and stickers
depicting religious motifs aimed at stirring up your
imagination, mean a big business in the right direction. Now
the sticker doing its round is the one showing the proposed
temple to be built at Ayodhya - the place where a 460 year
old mosque was pulled down by Hindu zealots. Markets in
Delhi and Agra are replete with replicas of the Taj Mahal
with the ‘trishul’ (the Hindu trident of divinity) at
the pinnacle, replacing the original Islamic crescent on the
top of the dome.
The sceptre of religion in India has assumed such vitality
that under the cover of religion one is at liberty to pull
down a monument, erect a monument, set a family ablaze and
to indulge in variety of activities antipodal to social
living. Co-existence, tolerance and harmony, the hallmark of
Indian tradition seems to be unwittingly trampled and
destroyed in the name of a modern state that opted to be
secular.
While the rest of Asia, rather the world, heads towards
glorious free trade market, India dithers between the
socialist uncertainties of the 50s and a Hindu militancy
dating back to myths and mythology. Never before has there
been such a market for Hindu hocus-pocus and saffron clad
holy men as now, and nothing is likely to feed that appetite
so much as the public breakdown and humiliation of the ideal
of secular democracy.
Forty seven years of free, democratic and secular
India has done little to uphold secularism. Since
Independence, not a single year has passed without
witnessing widespread Hindu - Muslim violence. Most of the
industrially developed Muslim zones like Aligarh, Moradabad,
Varanasi, Meerut, Hyderabad and others went aflame at one
time or the other. Worse still is the allegation that the
police plays a partisan role in further annihilating
Muslims. Recently New York times carried a special report
highlighting extracts from transcripts of Bombay police
radio conversation that clearly revealed police
participation in arson against the Muslims.
The Muslims are
simply terrorized, a frustrated lot burning in anger and
despair. The people who once ruled India, now appear to be
sinking into a low level with no grip over economic,
political or media powers. Last year, Dilip Padgaonkar, the
editor of Times of India remarked that if the situation
continues to prevail, soon Muslims will be holding the Quran
in one hand and the Klashinkov in the other. Except for
Kashmir, militancy among Muslims has not yet crept in but
the rhetoric of Hindu brigade seems to be provoking. Hindu
leaders have asserted time and again, their pride in Hindu
culture and its imposition on everyone living in India. The
consequences and reverberations are not confined within the
territories of India but it takes into its ambit the
neighbouring countries as well. The Hindu extremists have
done their best to focus on Muslims as aliens and antagonistic
and thus a destructive force.
History is never
far from the surface in contemporary India. Wrong deduction
from history and culture is being spread to fan communal
hatred. On one hand, according to Marx, India was only an
appendage of the British empire. He tells us that India is
no nation and it has no history. She is ‘the
predestined prey of conquest . . . . Indian society
has no history at all, at least no known history. What we
call its history, is but the history of successive
intruders.’ On the other hand the Hindu
fundamentalists use the mythical god, Ram a warrior king
whose exploits are illustrated in the Ramayana (the epic)
exemplifying the manipulation of Hinduism for political
purposes. However, it cannot be denied that for millennium,
the religion has been electric, embracing and flexible. It
was astonishingly resilient during the Muslim invasions for
centuries. Unlike Islam, Hinduism is a not a coherent faith
at all but it is a heterogeneous in the extreme. The term
‘Hinduism ‘ is applied to a welter of sects and
tradition both great and small, which vary considerably from
region to region. There is no single text or historical
figure on which Hindus can focus.
The caretakers of
Hindu fundamentalism have painted the six centuries of
Muslim rule in India as a period of barbarism, temple
destruction and oppression on Hindus. Facts have been
underplayed or overplayed to make history suit one’s
purpose. Muslims have painted Emperor Aurangzeb as a hero
while the Hindus have discounted him as a villain and a
narrow minded bigot. Historians do not miss any opportunity
to mention the destruction of temples at the hands of
Aurangzeb but they deliberately ignore the continuation of
grants to temples and even the construction of new temples.
The Muslim rule and its contributions in the socio-political
and economic spheres have been dumped to make way for phoney
accusations that widens the Hindu-Muslim gulf further.
It cannot be
denied that the caste ridden Hindu society was overnight
transformed into a cosmopolitan character with the influx of
Muslims. Likewise each sphere of Indian life was influenced
if not changed. Indo-Islamic architecture, as the word
itself suggests is a unique experience in itself. The
Muslims too did not remain unchanged. Indian culture was
bound to influence them and no king or courtier was an
exception. Had it been a religion based history, no Muslim
ruler would have fought or displaced his brother ruler, but
all major battles of Indian history were fought between
Muslims. History books are unmindful of such facts and few
mention that on the whole, Muslims were sensitive to their
Hindu compatriots. It is not a well known fact that from the
start Babur, the first Mughal emperor abolished cow
slaughter and it continued up to the last Mughal emperor in
1857 as a gesture of goodwill towards the Hindus. It is
equally true that temples were demolished but it was purely
a medieval phenomenon where it was a set practice to raze
the opponent’s shrine to proclaim sovereignty. ‘History
is replete with such examples and did the non-Muslim rulers
themselves spare the temples ?
Harshavardhana the seventh century, Hindu ruler, even had a
special officer to ‘uproot the gods’ in temples during
the battles with his feudatories.
Public toilets in
Delhi now make use of green tiles. Public buses display an
array of stickers aimed at outright challenges and
humiliation heaped at the minority. Similar slogans of
hatred and communal hyperbole can be seen scribbled on
monuments as far as Jaisalmer deserts where hardly a soul
survives in the vicinity. Medieval tombs lie desecrated and
a good number of Islamic monuments are being dismembered to
make way for Hindu institutions. Way back in 1967, June 27
to be precise, the entire area of Ramakrishnapuram Sector V
in New Delhi was sealed off under the command of different
magistrates and police officers. Around 300 labourers were
deployed to clear off the mosques and graveyards in the
soonest possible time in order to make way for the
construction project. Local protest proved futile. Section
295, 296 296a and 297 of the Indian Penal Code remained
silent spectators and even the efforts by the late
President, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed (the Minister of Wakf), did
nothing to save the situation.
I am not referring to the recent demolition of the Ayodhya
Mosque that was simply a part of the on-going process under
the secular garb of the nation. Had India been sincere about
its secular constitution, the mosque would never had been
demolished. And even on demolition it would been rebuilt but
on the contrary the site has been open to the Hindus for
worship.
Today there is hardly any Islamic monument in India, from
the Taj Mahal to a totally unknown tomb, that’s not a
subject of controversy between the two communities and why
Muslims alone? Bodhgaya, the most sacred place for the
Buddhists have been forcibly occupied by the Hindus. There
is no denial of the fact that several Muslim monuments were
based on Hindu structures but still further it cannot be
disproved that an equally good number of these structures
were erected by pulling down the members of the Buddhist
buildings. Nawab Ziauddin, in a paper to Archaeological
Survey of Delhi, had rightly pointed out -"No strong
proof can be adduced except the builder were to rise from
the dead and attest his own work on oath."
Tourists who
visited Delhi a decade ago will be surprised today to find a
30 ton granite statue being imposed on Mehrauli, the first
of the seven cities of Delhi, which is akin to a landscape
strewn with relics of Muslim centuries of Indian history.
Those who have roamed about the area of the famous Qutb
Minar will attest to a graceful remnant of an old stonework
that stood on the high ground now called Ahimsa Sthal. It
was a gateway to something which is no longer there - two
circular bastions flanking it on both sides, made the gate
impressive when first seen from a distance. Archaeologists
believe that the gateway was to the hunting lodge of Sultan
Altamash, the second Muslim ruler of India (1211-36).
The gateway of Altamash’s hunting lodge was deliberately
pulled down stone by stone, to make way for 11.5 metre high
pink granite statue of Mahavira. For sometime the Mahavira
statue co-existed with and was in fact dominated by
Altamash’s gateway. It looked very odd indeed. The statue
was initially installed facing the west, like the gate. All
that was a part of the modus operandi of the designers of
Ahimsa Sthal. They soon started dismantling Atamash’s
bastions and the gate from the rear. The gate finally
disappeared and then Mahavira’s statue was turned at a
right angle, to face north.
Parallel to the statue on an elevated platform lies a tomb
with its grave ripped apart. Forts, mosques, gateways, tombs
built by medieval rulers suffer a common ailment,
"erection of a pseudo construction," if not a full
fledged temple in close vicinity to the structure. Even a
secular structure like the Charminar has a mini temple
attached to it. Not content with the utter disregard for monuments, the
Hindu fanatics are trying to change the place names like
Lucknow, Allahabad, Mughalsarai and so on.
Those who
champion the cause of Hinduism are steeped in misconceptions
like Muslims are outnumbering Hindus, polygamy is rampant
among Muslims, a pampered minority, Muslims are less patriotic,
and so on.
Stark statistics reveal altogether a different scenario.
The Muslim birth rate is marginally higher than that of the
Hindus. Contrary to clinched perceptions, the Muslim is less
likely than the Hindu to taking more than one wife. Had the
community been pampered, wouldn’t it have been reflected
in its socio economic status; Latest census figures place
the Muslim population at 12% but it is surprising that
Muslim representation in the armed forces and public sector
undertakings is in no way proportionate with their
population ratio. On account of being educationally
deficient they found it difficult to enter the civil
services but the minority finds no place even in class IV
jobs. There isn’t a single industrial house which figures
among the country’s top 100.
With the passage of time, it is now getting more and more
difficult to be a Muslim without being in some way less
equal than other citizens. The notion stems from the belief
that they owe allegiance to Pakistan and consequently are
suspected of treachery to India. The most commonly quoted
example is the cricket scenario, where Muslims are looked
down upon for cheering Pakistan. But can it be ignored that
the Hindu community is no less happy with Pakistan’s
defeat ? It is linked to psychology rather than fact which
cannot be adequately substantiated.
Muslims in India face triple jeopardy - first at the hands
of his own co-religionists, religious opponents and then the
police. If a prominent Muslim figure is approached by a
fellow Muslim for the redress of a wrong, the supplicant is
straightaway turned out due to the fear of accusation of
partisanship. Muslim organisations and business houses, in
order to demonstrate their secular circle, prefer to employ
more Hindus rather than Muslims. During communal riots, the
Muslim plea has always been for the removal of the police
from the scene, so that their suffering are not alleviated
further. In some places, riots are checked within hours
while other places continue to burn for weeks in spite of
the presence of the Defence Minister.
The communal divide gets a fresh spur each time when a wrong
committed in India is linked to Pakistan. A blast in India
and the immediate accusation is towards Pakistan.
Destruction of a temple in India is a problem of India and
India alone, asserts the government and the same yardstick
should be applied to refrain from asking the neighbours to
prevent the temple destruction. All beef eaters in India are
termed as Pakistanis. If one is really serious about beef,
we should stop the export of beef in the first place and
secondly, check the adulteration of vegetable oil with beef
tallow and moreover be concerned about the abandoned cows.
If we are not able to check the communal menace, we are at
fault, our administration is at fault. Trying to find a
scapegoat is a political trickery. The need for personal
endeavour to redress wrongs has arisen unfortunately from
the state’s unwillingness and inability to do this.
It is erroneous
to blame or hold the BJP or any other political party
responsible for the destruction of the medieval mosque and
fanning the flames of communalism. Within 30 months of
Independence, the barely used Babri mosque had been violated
by a Hindu mob which installed idols in what they insisted
was the birth place of their god, Ram. Thereafter the
building was locked and put under guard, while Muslim and
Hindu groups engaged in endless litigation about ownership.
The position became worse in 1986 when the Rajiv Gandhi
government (Congress) ordered the temple to be reopened in
order to get political expediency, although the matter was
pending adjudication. The current crisis has been compounded
by the Congress government’s flawed tactics and its half
hearted punitive action.
The BJP took up the temple cause and pleaded for the temple
construction by replacing the mosque. It worked like a dream
and it took a mad turn on December 6, 1992 when the mosque
was demolished right before the custodians of law. The
central government blamed the state government and vice
versa. The government remained a silent spectator so
long the mosque was being demolished. Communal clashes
followed and the partisan role of the government and the
police became an established fact. The culprits and
conspirators were at large, exchanging the stones of the
mosque as a momento and it was only to pacify the people
that some leaders were detained summarily.
The Congress and BJP worked hand in glove. The voice of
liberation for Hindu sites like Ayodhya, Mathura, Varanasi
is not an overnight BJP or VHP demand. It had been renting
the air since long and once it was the diabolical deed of
the Congress leaders who championed the cause and dedicated
it to the VHP. It cannot be ignored that major riots and
carnages in independent India have taken place mostly under
Congress regimes in various states.
The resilience of Indian political culture has survived and
absorbed many crises in the past and refuted many sceptics
but now the question at the forefront is “should we
still discount the recent events as a cyclic spin of
violence or is it a fresh chapter in the prelude of new
escalations?”
|
