Dereliction of duty

January 5, 2010

How Gujarat’s top cops deserted residents of Gulberg Society

CP Pande:
Curfew was declared in the Meghaninagar area (where the Gulberg Society) is located at 12.54 pm on February 28 according to the police control room (PCR) records. By then, according to the PCR record logged at 12.38 pm, the Gulberg Society had been surrounded by a mob of 4-5,000 armed with weapons. In law, the commissioner of police, Pande had the responsibility of declaring curfew on time.

At 2.09 pm, PI Meghaninagar, Erda even asked for central forces but the PCR records show no deployment of paramilitary forces in the area till late in the evening. It is a decision that should have been taken by the Pande hours before.

JtCP, MK Tandon
Though he received a call from his boss, Pande, informing him of the attack on the residents of the Gulberg Society in the Meghaninagar area, JtCP Tandon preferred to stay put between 2 pm and 3 pm in the Revdi Bazaar area, a place five kms away from Gulberg Society. The PCR messaged Tandon informing him that Ahsan Jafri and other residents of the Gulberg society were in danger. But Tandon did not budge from the Revdi Bazaar area which was apparently calm with no incidents of violence.

In spite of Erda desperately seeking additional deployment at Gulberg Society around 2.30 pm, Tandon left the Revdi Bazaar area only after he was ordered to do so by Pande around 3 pm. Ironically, the Revdi Bazaar area where Tandon appears to have sought asylum falls under the jurisdiction of his counterpart, Shivanand Jha. During that critical period Jha himself did not leave the comfort of his own office at Shahibaug.

DCP Zone IV, PB Gondia
Not only did Tandon stay away from the entrapped citizens at Gulberg society, his deputy, DCP Zone IV, Gondia too chose the safety of the Kuber Nagar area, 6 kms away. In spite of being repeatedly informed by PCR about the violence raging in Gulberg Society, Gondia did not act. Gondia arrived at Gulberg Society a few minutes before 2 pm on that fateful day only to leave the place in less than an hour, leaving the hapless victims at the mercy of the armed mob. Later that afternoon, he moved to the Kalupur area which incidentally was outside his jurisdiction.

Thus the responsibility of the entire Meghaninagar area during the most crucial hours of February 28 – from 11.30 am to 3.30 pm – was left to PI Erda. This despite Erda’s repeatedly plea to his bosses (via the PCR) that the situation was spinning out of his control and senior officials with reinforcements should be rushed to the spot. While Erda is now an accused in the trial, Gondia, Tandon and Pande have totally escaped the SIT’s net.

Here is incontrovertible evidence of top cops turning a deaf ear and a blind eye to the pleas of victims under attack, even choosing to stay away while areas under their own jurisdiction were aflame, for reasons best known to them. The entire Meghaninagar area was left unattended by senior police officials even when a residential society along with a neighbouring police chowkey were set afire leading to huge casualties. Among the 70 persons maimed, massacred and burnt to ashes, was former parliamentarian Ahsan Jafri.

Travesty of truth

January 5, 2010

How intellectuals sell their soul

It is vacation time in the Supreme Court. Most of the lawyers and Honourable Judges are either out of town on a holiday or perhaps at tending to personal and social engagements. The pressure that a lawyer practising in the Supreme Court undergoes is by now a well-known phenomenon. It was on one such day last week that I received a call from an acquaintance in Gujarat. The state holds a special place in my heart. Apart from having many close friends, I obtained my postgraduate degree in Law from MS University, Vadodara.

The call however disturbed the even tempo of last Sunday as my interlocutor informed me about a piece written by one Gunvant Shah in the Sunday supplement of the Gujarati daily, Divya Bhaskar. The caller was himself confused since Gunvant Shah is a well-known and well-respected literary figure in the state normally known for his balanced writing. He read out certain portions of the article and since there was a mention about Teesta Setalvad, whom I represent in the Supreme Court of India, it became imperative to write this article in response.

A bare reading of the article entitled “Karmsheel Juttu Bole Ke?” (“Does a sincere worker tell a lie?”) refers to Setalvad’s father Atul Setalvad and calls him a man of principle. It then proceeds to cite instances which, according to the author, establish that Setalvad under the grab of being a sincere worker has been telling lies.

It is first important to go back into the family history of Teesta as Gunvant Shah has already referred to her father. Very few people may now remember that she is the great grand-daughter of Sir Chimanlal Setalvad, an eminent advocate in the Bombay High Court during the British Raj. Such was the eminence of Sir Setalvad that in the aftermath of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the atrocities committed during the imposition of martial law in the then undivided Punjab, he was made a member of the Disorders Inquiry Committee which was appointed by the British Government to go into the causes of the disturbances.

It is to the fullest credit of Sir Setalvad and another Indian member, Sardar Sahibzada Sultan Ahmed Khan, Bar-at-Law, Member for Appeals, Gwalior State, that they had the courage to record a dissenting note to the findings with regard to the Jallianwala Bagh massacre and the imposition of Martial Law in Punjab.

Sir Setalvad’s son, that is Teesta’s grandfather, retired as a senior counsel in the Supreme Court of India after being the first Attorney General of Independent India. If it was the intention of Gunvant Shah to establish that though sired by a principled father Teesta did not uphold the same values, he should now fully realize that the family values of this lady are far deeper and beyond any horizons than Gunvant Shah could have ever imagined.

The communal colour of the article becomes apparent when he makes it a point to say that she is married to Javed Anand and lest readers may mistake the Anand surname as a Hindu one, he makes it clear by suffixing ‘Begum’ to Teesta’s name. In a cleverer manner, he refers to Javed’s own article published in the Indian Express (March 16, 2010) to make the point that within the Muslim community Teesta is referred to as a ‘mujahid’.

Gunvant Shah is a respectable name in the Gujarati literary scene. He is the author of many seminal works which are well regarded and well read. Without any doubt he must realize that honesty is of two types and that intellectual honesty is by far the most important and superior to any other form of honesty which can be measured in rupees and/ or paise. Therefore can Gunvant Shah honestly say that in citing the above example it was not his intention to convey that it is because Teesta married a Muslim that she is espousing the case of the victims of communal riots, one of the most horrific that ever happened in India after 1947? Does he realize that Teesta neither changed her name to adopt a Muslim name nor converted to Islam?

The dishonesty of the author may have been intentional or unintentional. I would like to presume it was the latter, else how could he cite the example of Kausarbanu, a pregnant woman whose belly was torn upon by a sword during the riots and about whom relying on the evidence recorded by the SIT, Gunvant Shah proceeds to call Teesta a liar. I say that Shah has made this statement by mistake because he perhaps does not know the SIT on whose credibility he lays such a store by, stands discredited in the eyes of apex court to the extent that two Additional Director Generals of Police of the SIT, namely Shivanand Jha and Geeta Johri have been directed to stay out of the same. The latter has already been exposed for her deliberate failure in the investigation of Sohrabuddin case now being investigated by the CBI. The second point Gunvant Shah has completely forgotten is the Tehelka expose, which was telecast in the last quarter of 2007 where the perpetrator himself has admitted to the crime on camera.
The most unfortunate aspect of the article by this eminent author is his reference to the Sohrabuddin case. He states: “24 (AK 56) rifles, 27 hand grenades, 550 cartridges and 81 magazines were found”. He further writes, “…so was this man a Sufi fakir?” The figures of arms and ammunitions seized way back in 1995 from a village in Madhya Pradesh can only have been given to him by the authorities of the (Gujarat) state government. We may not however split hair on this issue, what is important is the obfuscation of facts. If this was true, those who supplied information to Gunvant Shah should reconcile the fact that Soharabuddin’s role was that of a petty criminal, who neither supplied these weapons nor used them but was part of a family or a gang to whom these weapons were entrusted for safe keeping.

It is not the intention here to give Sohrabuddin the benefit of doubt. He was tried, convicted and released. The law of the land had taken its course. The point however is different. Is it the contention of the Gujarat police that such a criminal should have been liquidated in cold blood?

If public spirited citizens and votaries of civil society are to justify their existence in this country, they need to expose as vigorously as possible, and preferably outside the judicial forum, intentional misuse of state power to suppress crimes of serious nature

The initial FIR registered by the Gujarat police mentioned that Sohrabuddin had come to kill Narendra Modi. The evidence now available establishes that the encounter was a fake. Can Gunvant Shah explain to the people of Gujarat how he views the motivation of a politician in power who through at least six fake encounters (figures could be actually as high as three times this number) has tried to paint for himself a macho image to help him realize his naked ambition of becoming the Prime Minister of India?

It is often said that perception is more important than the reality, more so where public perception is concerned. In the cacophony of “…Sohrabuddin, Sohrabuddin, Sohrabuddin…”, that innocent woman Kauserbi (his wife) is completely forgotten. On that fateful night in November 2005, when officers of the Gujarat police intercepted the bus travelling from Hyderabad to Hubli and wanted to take away Sohrabuddin alone, this loyal and courageous lady refused to let him go alone and clung to him thereby forcing the Gujarat police to bring her to Ahmedabad. The state has since admitted that she was killed.

Is it realized that extinguishing of this human life was not even brought on record, even as another, one more, fake encounter? And yet the state government opposed the transfer of the fake encounter case to the CBI, contesting it tooth and nail for three years. On each hearing, it sent the additional advocate general and the secretary to the CM to remain present in the Supreme Court. Shah should have analysed this reluctance on part of the Gujarat administration and opined whether it amounts to obstruction of justice in one form or the other.

It may well turn out that this could be one of the most horrendous cases this country has ever seen where a self-seeking political executive has used unscrupulous elements in the police in a dastardly manner. One year and two months later when it was realized that an interim report was sent to Supreme Court in December 2006, prima facie admitting that the killing of Sohrabuddin was a fake encounter, Tulsi Prajapati, a crucial eye witness, was in gross misuse of the judicial process brought on a transfer warrant from Udaipur and killed near Ambaji, Banaskantha district, Gujarat.

Two points need to be mentioned here. In his article why has Gunvant Shah remained quiet about the killing of Kauserbi and secondly why has he remained silent about the similar cold blooded liquidation of Tulsi Prajapati? The state government’s own CID (Crime) has arrested several police officers including the superintendent of police, Vipul Aggarwal in the said crime. If Teesta is a begum by virtue of her marriage to Javed Anand, what is Tulsi’s religion? Muslim, as he was a close associate of Sohrabuddin or Hindu, because his mother is one Narmadaben?

Gunvant Shah is an author and I am a lawyer. We both represent those sections of our society that are vital for the well-being of a healthy democracy. Both speak and write in the public domain and therefore it is critical for both to be sure of facts and the canvass on which they are operated. It would be naive for anyone to presume that Gunvant Shah was not aware of the entire circumstances. Therefore, it can only be said that if he wrote an article of this nature that is under discussion he has done a great disservice to the state by lending his name to issues which are far more complicated and serious than his literary background can even began to fathom.

I do not write in defence of Teesta, she can more than take care of herself. This response is actually a call to all law-abiding citizens to sit up and take notice of what is happening in the state of Gujarat. If public spirited citizens and votaries of civil society are to justify their existence in this country, they need to expose as vigorously as possible, and preferably outside the judicial forum, intentional misuse of state power to suppress crimes of serious nature. Let the citizens ask why the state sent the chief secretary, home secretary and the DGP to meet the director, CBI with regard to the criminal investigation of the Sohrabuddin case as reported by several newspapers, to convey to the chief of the Central agency that following the orders of the Supreme Court, according to these worthies, is going against the public opinion in Gujarat.

This is an unprecedented move never heard of before. A former DGP of Gujarat is already in the dock for obstructing justice. This is an investigation ordered by the Supreme Court after three years of deliberation. The state itself arrested 14 police officers of Gujarat and Rajasthan. When the CBI arrested one more police officer, Abhay Chudasma, DCP (Crime), there is an immediate uproar that it is going against sentiments of the people of Gujarat. Is it not for the governor of the state to take notice of the fact that the affairs of the government of Gujarat are conducted under rules framed as per Article 166 of the Constitution of India and therefore, by what administrative or constitutional propriety and under whose instructions or with whose connivance did the chief secretary, home secretary and the DGP proceed to Delhi to meet the CBI director?

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2010 Year 16 No.152, Cover Story 1

A Gandhian with a difference

December 31, 2009

Iqbal Ahmad Ansari, 1935 – 2009

Professor Iqbal Ahmad Ansari, a researcher and a theoretician as well as a fieldworker of the human rights movement in India, died an activist discussing violations of minority rights on Gandhi Jayanti (October 2) and holding consultations with PUCL activists in the national capital on the evening before his death in Aligarh on October 13, 2009. In December 2007 he was honoured by the Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Centre for Promotion of Human Rights Teaching and Research for his largely unheralded contributions in the area.

He was a unique Muslim intellectual who spoke with reason and in a language understandable to non-Muslim jurists, secular intellectuals and rights activists, Muslim clerics and even international jihadis. He was a self-confident Muslim writer of substance who was immune to denial and conspiracy theories. He also saw justification in the media hyping of "Islamic terrorism", as, of all the violent groups fighting against oppression worldwide, it was only the Muslims whose war cry was religious, paying no heed to the theology, and axiology, of the use of force in Islam.

"Muslim passivity and the urge to blame the media," he wrote, "should be replaced by an objective assessment of the rise of the cult of violence in the name of armed Islamic jihad in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and lately in Bangladesh." He discounted Islamic terrorism, which he preferred to call anti-Islamic, on both counts: its legitimacy as well as its strategic viability. While speaking of Islamic terrorism in the wake of 9/11, he counselled Muslims worldwide, "wherever they find themselves oppressed, to explore new techniques of effective peaceful struggle, of passive resistance, which was evolved by, among others, Gandhi."

Ansari was most eloquent in his enunciation of the principles of legitimate violence, a term that he carefully avoided, favouring instead the phrase "use of force", even in the context of non-state actors. Unlike most Muslim writers who emphasised the spiritual jihad, he spoke directly, and most often solely, on armed jihad, which was, as he put it, the legitimate use of force for a specified just cause. He was not one of the many Gandhians who disallowed the use of force for all causes even if just, and even in self-defence. "The pacifists preaching the religious doctrine of absolute non-violence," he maintained, "could not generally remain consistent for any length of time, as was the case with Gandhi on Kashmir in 1947."

He was a Gandhian with a difference. He believed that it was more important, while pursuing the noble quest for a state of everlasting peace in the world, to seek universal observance of humanitarian laws of armed conflict whenever force was used so that all non-combatants, especially women, children, the old and the disabled, enjoyed protection of life and dignity during hostilities. This realistic Koranic position on the legitimacy of force is not only similar to that of Gandhi’s Gita but has also been endorsed by the world community in modern times under the United Nations Charter (1945) and the humanitarian laws of war codified under the four Geneva Conventions (1949).

Whenever he spoke on the issue of legitimate use of force, he invariably addressed the militant groups alongside the governments and "all the militarily powerful nations of the world, led by the United States of America". In fact, Ansari’s discourse of the legitimate use of force has the potential to engage even the Maoist Naxals in a dialogue of reason. "In Islam, peace is accorded a fairly high ranking in the hierarchy of values but so is justice. A kind of militancy defined as a vigorous struggle directed towards establishing a just order was inherent in the ideological orientation of Islam. Internal insurgency and rebellion can enjoy legitimacy if any section or group feels persistently oppressed and other peaceful methods of redressal have been exhausted."

However, the use of force by any such group would be governed by the same principles as a declared war under a unified political command and could seek Islamic legitimacy only under strict conditions both while defining ends as well as means. During any declared hostilities and armed conflict led by a political command, if the destruction of military power and potential of the enemy required any operation wherein death of the attacking soldiers was certain, suicide bombing of purely military targets may be considered permissible but not in situations where civilians could be victims. He also rejected the validity of the contention that civilians were legitimate targets because they were taxpayers and supporters of a tyrannical government.

In this context, he further emphasised the shades within each category of ‘justice’ and ‘peace’ (or ‘equality’ and ‘freedom’) requiring discrimination, that is, tolerable inequality reconciled to larger freedom and tolerable injustice reconciled to pervasive peace and vice versa. "On occasion it will make us choose peace under an order which is not perfectly just while continuing to struggle peacefully for a more just order." That is where intercommunity peace initiatives and intercommunity/state conciliation are to be most relevant.

In his perennial pursuit of conciliation and human rights, he appears to have arrived at his own definition or interpretation of "Islamism" (or what is alternatively called "political Islam") as being a struggle for justice and he urged Islamists worldwide "to engage in research and activism in the area of prevention and peaceful resolution of conflicts and in developing effective techniques for peaceful struggles for the right of self-determination and for fighting political and economic injustices that they are faced with". To the question: Will it succeed, his answer was: Has terrorism succeeded?

He noted with satisfaction the fact that in spite of being subjected to recurrent organised violence with state collusion, Indian Muslims were not associated with any international terrorist organisation. On occasion stray Muslim individuals have taken recourse to terrorist acts because, as explained by Justice Srikrishna and others, they despair of ever receiving justice from the system. Ansari however did not think that periodic post-event condemnation of such acts was an adequate response from Indian Muslim leaders, as he was alarmed by the rise of what he called "anti-Islamic terrorism" in India’s neighbourhood.

"Targeting lawyers and judges for administering secular laws instead of Shariah in Bangladesh is the latest example of jihadi acts committed by self-proclaimed Islamic groups," he said, and urged Muslim religious leaders and intellectuals to engage their counterparts in Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and Bangladesh in a community dialogue on the legitimacy of force in Islam (as well as its efficacy) and the ethical and legal code governing armed hostilities.

Born activist that he was, he addressed a ‘Memorandum To PM HM CMs’ (2005), ‘An Open Letter to Muslim Ulema and Intellectuals’ (February 2006) and, in a meeting at the Gandhi Peace Foundation in New Delhi (February 2007), launched a campaign entitled ‘Shanti Pahal’ for the advocacy of intercommunity peace initiatives. He visited Jammu and Kashmir on several occasions, alone and along with others. During his last visit, in September 2006, he sought the consent of Kashmiri leaders to a ‘Citizens’ Declaration on Protection of Uninvolved Persons During all Situations of Use of Force’. He also visited Islamabad and Karachi in 2008 and, with the help of old Aligarians there, managed to get endorsements from Pakistani ulema and intellectuals for the declaration: ‘Towards a Riot and Terror-Free Indo-Pak Region’.

Ansari was a rare intellectual and a great negotiator of theologico-political issues, combining the best traditions of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Muhammad Iqbal and Mahatma Gandhi. He held that durable peace in "traditional societies like those in the subcontinent" required basic reform of the police and justice system for the state to uphold the rule of law and also called for intercommunity/interstate conciliation through dialogue, especially on emotive ethno-religious issues like cow slaughter, conversion, Ayodhya and Kashmir. He bracketed Kashmir with the range of Hindu-Muslim issues because, seen from a broader historical perspective, it was part of the history of unresolved Hindu-Muslim conflict leading to partition. "Any overall religio-cultural conciliation between Hindus and Muslims in India may be expected to lead to a qualitative change in the attitude of Kashmiris."

Pursuing a Gandhian insight on cow slaughter and conversion, he urged Muslims to declare a voluntary ban on cow slaughter and hoped that such a voluntary declaration would go a long way in earning the goodwill of the Hindu community, especially its elite. "Banning cow slaughter by a central legislation may come into conflict with the demands of secularism," he argued, "but its coming into effect through a compact will not pose any problem so long as other animals are available for sacrifice and for food. Several Muslim monarchs, ulema and leaders, including Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, adopted such a conciliatory attitude in the past."

He felt that the major source of opposition from the Hindu elite to Muslim-specific affirmative action was their fear of mass religious conversion and emphasised the need to accommodate these concerns about national disintegration through the proposed mechanism of an independent, statutorily empowered Community Relations Commission. He also urged Muslims to voluntarily declare that there was no political design to induce the conversion of weak and vulnerable groups of Hindus. Interestingly, he followed Gandhian wisdom even on the issue of Muslim-specific reservation in the sense that he supported special action in favour of the weakest while, and as a way of, maintaining the unity of the community.

Given the right perspective, he argued, it should not lie beyond the realm of the possible to amicably resolve the Ayodhya issue, if Muslims could be reasonably assured that compromise would yield permanent peace dividends guaranteeing the rule of law, securing their due share in the socio-economic and political life of the nation and ensuring that they fully enjoyed their right to a distinct identity as a religious minority.

However, it is a pity that though his intercommunity peace initiative enjoyed the moral support of large sections of intellectuals from all communities as well as of leading ulema, his effort to prevent Ayodhya II, for which he observed a one-day token fast at Rajghat, New Delhi, in 2001, did not have the desired effect. For this the primary blame, in his own view, attaches to "non-Sangh Hindus who did not come forward with any fair compromise solution and thus allowed the sangh parivar to be the sole spokesmen of the Hindu community".

References

PUCL Bulletin, November 2009.
‘Terror in the name of Islam’, The Times of India, January 6, 2006.
‘Terrorism Cannot Work’, The Times of India, October 17, 2001.
‘Minority rights and responsibilities’, The Hindu, December 31, 2005.
‘Hindu-Muslim conflict – need for conciliation’, The Milli Gazette, January 1-15, 2001.
Position paper: ‘Islam and Use of Force’, 2004, www.wcmir.org/papers.html
‘Human Rights: A Struggle for Justice & Peace’, February 2008,
www.indianmuslims.info/…human_rights_struggle_justice_peace.html
Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2010 Year 16 No.147/ Obituary

Muslim women struggle for peace on International Human Rights Day

December 31, 2009

New York, December 10, 2009: As the world comes together today to celebrate the 61st anniversary of International Human Rights Day, we, the women of WISE (Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality) demand that violence against Muslim women come to an end.

Violence against women not only affects women and their families but also the communities and societies we live in. Violence impedes women’s development, access to education and health and equal rights in the family, which in turn hinders the progress and development of communities and societies. As the World Economic Forum’s 2009 Global Gender Gap Index points out, 18 of the 25 lowest-ranking countries are Muslim-majority countries. It is time to end the violence against Muslim women and allow our communities to flourish in peace.

Today WISE women leaders around the world are reclaiming the rich legacy that Muslim women have had in the history of Islam in order to end violence against women. Using their Islamic faith to justify and inspire Muslim women’s empowerment, WISE women aim to build a cohesive global movement of Muslim women that will reclaim women’s rights in Islam, enabling them to make dignified choices and fully participate in creating just and flourishing societies. A universal declaration for Muslim women and the cornerstone of the WISE movement, the WISE Compact highlights the basic rights of Muslim women. In particular, it focuses on the need to end violence against women and as its signatories, members of the WISE community commit themselves to the realisation of this endeavour: "We are dedicated to protecting and promoting life by promoting the mental, emotional, spiritual and physical health of Muslim women and by eliminating violence against Muslim women." Similarly, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states the importance of life and security for all individuals in Article 3: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."

WISE is working in several areas to end violence against women. WISE’s Shura Council, a global council of Muslim women scholars, activists and specialists, recently launched their campaign, Jihad against Violence, which uses religiously grounded arguments against violence. In addition, WISE is collaborating with a number of women’s organisations around the world, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Egypt, to improve women’s rights and end violence against women. WISE women from the Noor Educational Centre in Afghanistan are creating the first holistic gender-sensitive imam training programme in Kabul and surrounding areas. In Pakistan, WISE women from the organisation, Bedari, are organising advocacy efforts, including outreach material and street theatre performances, in an effort to raise awareness about domestic violence against women. WISE women from the organisation, Egyptian Association for Society Development, have developed an economic incentive and religious education project to end female genital cutting (FGC) practices in surrounding neighbourhoods of Cairo.

For more information please go to: www.wisemuslimwomen.org.

Courtesy: Women’s Islamic Initiative in Spirituality and Equality

My cousin, the suicide bomber

December 31, 2009

A brutalised Afghan society does not know whether to mourn or to celebrate death

For the rest of the world the victims of the Afghan war remain nameless and faceless. Not for us in Afghanistan. I myself have mourned a number of such victims, including my own uncle, my father’s brother. Three weeks back there was yet another suicide blast which killed only the bomber and his accomplice. The suicide bomber was reportedly on his way to ambush German troops in the north of Afghanistan. He was being driven to the potential scene of action on motorbike by his accomplice. On their way they were asked to stop at a police check post. Instead of stopping, they attempted to escape and were fired at. The biker lost his balance and both fell, setting off the explosives packed into a suicide jacket. Both died on the spot. Either the suicide bomber or his accomplice was my cousin, Abdul Latif. He was 22.

When the incident was reported on television, hardly anybody in my family noticed the name Abdul Latif even if we knew that he sympathised with the Taliban and used to support suicide bombings. Since many bear the name Latif, we did not think it could be the Latif we knew. We only learnt of his death after his parents became suspicious when he did not return home for a week. Since he often went missing for a couple of days, his absence was not initially marked. But a weeklong absence was unusual.

When his father contacted the authorities, he was arrested and had to spend a night in the lock-up. "The police were angry that I did not tell them about my son’s plan to blow himself up," my uncle later told family members after his release had been secured through tribal connections. Though Latif’s parents knew where his sympathies lay, they were not ready to hand their son over to the authorities. After all, one hears about the torture techniques employed at the notorious detention centres run by Americans in Afghanistan. However, Latif’s family, particularly his mother, had begged him to end his association with the Taliban. He would never argue. His only answer was: "I am seeking paradise."

His strong conviction about entering paradise had been inculcated into his mind over a period of 12 years which he spent at a madrassa in Pakistan where our respective families had migrated to during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. In practice, the Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan were run by the mujahideen even if the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) officially managed their affairs. In these camps, the education of girls, music, television or any liberal pursuits were banned. Women had to wear a burkha. My father wanted me to go to school. RAWA, an Afghan women’s organisation, ran underground schools for girls as well as boys. This is how my family came into contact with RAWA. It was not just me, all my brothers enrolled at these schools too, as boys had no choice but to go to a madrassa. Over a period of time supporters of RAWA were able to set up an entire refugee camp of their own where fundamentalists had no influence. Life in this camp was in sharp contrast to the camps run by fundamentalists.

Latif was not born in a RAWA camp. He grew up in a camp under the jihadis’ control and attended a madrassa where the primers were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines. Ironically, these textbooks were developed under a USAID (United States Agency for International Development) grant to the University of Nebraska and its Centre for Afghanistan Studies in the early 1980s. This fact was brought to my notice during a visit to the USA soon after 9/11, by a friend who showed me a report in The Washington Post which said that USAID had spent $51 million on such "education programmes" in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994. Latif was one of those who became lettered through such textbooks.

His death therefore stirred strange feelings in me, who, as a RAWA spokesperson, has been on the Taliban’s hit list during Taliban rule (and perhaps still am). It felt as if Latif himself had been a victim, a victim of US-sponsored intellectual terrorism perpetrated through textbooks issued from Nebraska University. Or perhaps I was saddened by a youthful death.

I thought constantly about Latif’s mother, who received only three bones to bury in our village’s sprawling graveyard. Since his death, I have been thinking that if Latif (and youth like him) had had the chance to go to a good school, he would never have had such suicidal ambitions. Readers may wonder why he did not go to a RAWA school. Because of the fear of fundamentalists and the threats his father received from them. His father was told by fundamentalists that if he tried to educate his children at coed RAWA schools, he would either face dangerous consequences or else have to leave the camp.

The words of Latif’s elder brother, who helps his father run a small shop, have also been constantly ringing in my ears. On hearing of Latif’s death, his elder brother said: "Good that he only killed himself. Think if he had been sent to explode himself where he would have killed dozens of civilians. Imagine the tragedy he would have wrought." I have been wondering, ever since I heard these words, how Afghan society has been so brutalised that we don’t even know whether to mourn or to celebrate the deaths of our dear ones.

Courtesy: www.makepakistanbetter.com

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2010 Year 16 No.147/ Ethos

Alpine Bigotry

December 31, 2009

Roman Orthodox Church in Hama, Syria

The Swiss vote against minarets betrays enlightenment ideals

Swissinfo surveyed the headlines in Switzerland and found that the press there universally condemned and expressed dismay at the (majority vote against minarets on mosques). Editors expressed consternation at the inevitable tarnishing of Switzerland’s image and worried about the consequences. Will there be boycotts? Sanctions? Appeals to the European Court of Human Rights?

I can anticipate right now arguments to excuse this outbreak of bigotry in the Alps that will be advanced by our own fringe Right, of neoconservatives and those who think, without daring to say it, that "white culture" is superior to all other world civilisations and deserves to dominate or wipe the others out.

The first is that it is only natural that white, Christian Europeans should be afraid of being swamped by people adhering to an alien, non-European religion.

Switzerland is said to be five per cent Muslim and, of course, this proportion is a recent phenomenon there and so unsettling to some. But Islam is not new to Europe. Parts of what is now Spain were Muslim for 700 years and much of the eastern stretches of what is now the European Union was ruled by Muslims for centuries and had significant Muslim populations. Córdoba and Sarajevo are not in Asia or Latin America. They are in Europe. And they are cities formed in the bosom of Muslim civilisation.

The European city of Córdoba in the medieval period has been described thusly:

"For centuries Córdoba used to be the jewel of Europe, which dazzled visitors from the north. Visitors marvelled at what seemed to them an extraordinary general prosperity; one could travel for ten miles by the light of street lamps and along an uninterrupted series of buildings. The city is said to have had then 2,00,000 houses, 600 mosques and 900 public baths. Over the quiet Guadalquivir, Arab engineers threw a great stone bridge of seventeen arches, each fifty spans in width. One of the earliest undertakings of Abd al-Rahman I was an aqueduct that brought to Córdoba an abundance of fresh water for homes, gardens, fountains and baths."

So if the Swiss think that Islam is alien to Europe then they are thinking of a rather small Europe, not the Europe that now actually exists. Minarets dotted Córdoba. The Arnaudija mosque in Banja Luka dates back to the 1400s; it was destroyed along with dozens of others by fanatics in the civil war that accompanied the break-up of Yugoslavia in the 1990s.

As for the likely comeback, that Muslims came to Europe from the 700s of the common era as conquerors, unlike Christianity, actually, both were conquering state religions. It was the conversion of an emperor that gave a favoured position to Christianity in Europe, which was a small minority on the continent at the time. And Charlemagne forcibly imposed Christianity on the German tribes up to the Elbe. In the cases both of European Christianity and European Islam, there were many willing converts among the ordinary folk, who thrilled to itinerant preachers or beautiful chanting.

Others will allege that Muslims do not grant freedom of religion to Christians in their midst. First of all, this allegation is not true if we look at the full range of the countries where the 1.5 billion Muslims live. Among the nearly 60 Muslim-majority states in the world, only one, Saudi Arabia, forbids the building of churches. Does Switzerland really want to be like Saudi Arabia?

Here is a western Christian description of the situation of Christians in Syria:

"In Syria, as in all other Arab countries of the Middle East except Saudi Arabia, freedom of religion is guaranteed in law… We should like to point out too that in Syria and in several other countries of the region, Christian churches benefit from free water and electricity supplies, are exempt from several types of tax and can seek building permission for new churches (in Syria, land for these buildings is granted by the state) or repair existing ones."

It should be noted too that there are Christian members of Parliament and of government in Syria and other countries, sometimes in a fixed number (as in Lebanon and Jordan.)

Finally, we note that a new personal statute was promulgated on June 18, 2006 for the various Christian churches found in Syria, which purposely and verbatim repeats most of the rules of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches promulgated by Pope John Paul II.

That is, in Muslim-majority Syria, the government actually grants land to Christians for the building of churches, along with free water and electricity. Christians have their own personal status legal code, straight from the Vatican. (It is because Christians have their own law in the Middle East, backed by the state, that Muslims in the West are puzzled as to why they cannot practise their personal status code.) Christians have freedom of religion though there are sensitivities about attempts to convert others (as there are everywhere in the Middle East, including Israel). And Christians are represented in the legislature. With Switzerland’s five per cent Muslim population, how many Muslim members of Parliament does it have?

It will also be alleged that in Egypt some clergymen gave fatwas or legal opinions that building churches is a sin and it will be argued that Christians have been attacked by Muslims in Upper Egypt.

These arguments are fallacies. You cannot compare the behaviour of some Muslim fanatics in rural Egypt to the laws and ideals of the Swiss republic. We have to look at Egyptian law and policy.

The grand sheikh of Al-Azhar Seminary, the foremost centre of Sunni Muslim learning, said in statements carried by Egyptian newspaper Al-Youm Al-Saba’a that Muslims can make voluntary contributions to build churches, pointing out that the church is a house for "worshipping and tolerance". He condemned the fundamentalist Muslims for saying church-building is sinful. And Egypt has lots of churches, including new Presbyterian ones, following John Calvin, who, I believe, lived in Geneva. About six per cent of the population is Christian.

The other problem with excusing Switzerland with reference to Muslims’ own imperfect adherence to human rights ideals is that two wrongs don’t make a right. The bigoted Right doesn’t even have the moral insight of kindergarteners if that is the sort of argument they advance. The International Declaration of Human Rights was crafted with the participation of Pakistan, a Muslim country; the global contemporary rights regime is imperfectly adhered to by all countries – it is a claim on the world’s behaviour, something we must all strive for. If the Swiss stepped back from it, they stepped back in absolute terms. It doesn’t help us get to global human rights to say that is okay because others are also failing to live up to the declaration.

The other Wahhabi state besides Saudi Arabia, Qatar, has allowed churches. But they are not allowed to have steeples or bells. This policy is a mirror image to that of the Swiss.

So Switzerland, after centuries of striving for civilisation and enlightenment, has just about reached the same level of tolerance as that exhibited by a small Gulf Wahhabi country, the people of which were mostly Bedouins only a hundred years ago.

Courtesy: Muslim Media Network; muslimmedianetwork.com

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2010 Year 16 No.147/ Observatory 2

A man who knew the future

December 31, 2009

The uncanny prescience of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad

In April 1946, at a time when the British Cabinet Mission was holding its proceedings in Delhi and Shimla, the then Congress president, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, is said to have given the following interview to journalist Shorish Kashmiri for a Lahore-based Urdu magazine, Chattan. Azad made some startling predictions during the course of the interview, many of which have been borne out by subsequent events. He envisaged that religious conflict would tear Pakistan apart, that its eastern half would carve out its own future and that Pakistan’s incompetent leadership could pave the way for military rule.

The interview has only been published in one book so far, Kashmiri’s own book on Abul Kalam Azad which was printed by Matbooat Chattan, Lahore, a now defunct publishing house. Former Indian cabinet minister Arif Mohammad Khan discovered the book after years of searching and translated the interview for Covert magazine.

Q: The Hindu-Muslim dispute has become so acute that it has foreclosed any possibility of reconciliation. Don’t you think that in this situation, the birth of Pakistan has become inevitable?

A: If Pakistan were the solution of the Hindu-Muslim problem then I would have extended my support to it. A section of Hindu opinion is now turning in its favour. By conceding the NWFP [North-West Frontier Province], Sindh, Balochistan and half of Punjab on one side and half of Bengal on the other they think they will get the rest of India – a huge country that would be free from any claims of a communal nature. If we use the Muslim League terminology, this new India will be a Hindu state, both practically and temperamentally. This will not happen as a result of any conscious decision but will be a logical consequence of its social realities. How can you expect a society that consists 90 per cent of Hindus, who have lived with their ethos and values since prehistoric times, to grow differently?

The factors that laid the foundation of Islam in Indian society and created a powerful following have become victims of the politics of partition. The communal hatred it has generated has completely extinguished all possibilities of spreading and preaching Islam. This communal politics has hurt the religion beyond measure. Muslims have turned away from the Koran. If they had taken their lessons from the Koran and the life of the holy prophet and had not forged communal politics in the name of religion then Islam’s growth would not have halted. By the time of the decline of Mughal rule, the Muslims in India were a little over 22.5 million, that is, about 65 per cent of the present numbers. Since then, the numbers kept increasing. If the Muslim politicians had not used the offensive language that embittered communal relations, and the other section acting as agents of British interests had not worked to widen the Hindu-Muslim breach, the number of Muslims in India would have grown higher.

The political disputes we created in the name of religion have projected Islam as an instrument of political power and not what it is – a value system meant for the transformation of the human soul. Under British influence, we turned Islam into a confined system; and following in the footsteps of other communities like Jews, Parsis and Hindus, we transformed ourselves into a hereditary community. The Indian Muslims have frozen Islam and its message and divided themselves into many sects. Some sects were clearly born at the instance of colonial power. Consequently, these sects became devoid of all movement and dynamism and lost faith in Islamic values.

The hallmark of Muslim existence was striving and now the very term is strange to them. Surely they are Muslims but they follow their own whims and desires. In fact, now they easily submit to political power, not to Islamic values. They prefer the religion of politics, not the religion of the Koran. Pakistan is a political standpoint. Regardless of whether it is the right solution to the problems of Indian Muslims, it is being demanded in the name of Islam. The question is when and where Islam provided for the division of territories to settle populations on the basis of belief and unbelief. Does this find any sanction in the Koran or the traditions of the holy prophet? Who among the scholars of Islam has divided the dominion of god on this basis?

If we accept this division in principle, how shall we reconcile it with Islam as a universal system? How shall we explain the ever growing Muslim presence in non-Muslim lands, including India? Do they realise that if Islam had approved this principle then it would not have permitted its followers to go to non-Muslim lands and many ancestors of the supporters of Pakistan would not have even entered the fold of Islam? Division of territories on the basis of religion is a contraption devised by the Muslim League. They can pursue it as their political agenda but it finds no sanction in Islam or the Koran. What is the cherished goal of a devout Muslim? Spreading the light of Islam or dividing territories along religious lines to pursue political ambitions?

The demand for Pakistan has not benefited Muslims in any manner. How Pakistan can benefit Islam is a moot question and will largely depend on the kind of leadership it gets. The impact of western thought and philosophy has made the crisis more serious. The way the leadership of the Muslim League is conducting itself will ensure that Islam will become a rare commodity in Pakistan and Muslims in India. This is a surmise and god alone knows what is in the womb of the future. Pakistan, when it comes into existence, will face conflicts of a religious nature. As far as I can see, the people who will hold the reins of power will cause serious damage to Islam. Their behaviour may result in the total alienation of the Pakistani youth who may become part of non-religious movements. Today, in Muslim-minority states, the Muslim youth are more attached to religion than in Muslim-majority states. You will see that despite the increased role of the ulema, the religion will lose its sheen in Pakistan.

Q: But many ulema are with Quaid-e-Azam [MA Jinnah].

A: Many ulema were with (Mughal emperor) Akbar-e-Azam too; they invented a new religion for him. Do not discuss individuals. Our history is replete with the doings of the ulema who have brought humiliation and disgrace to Islam in every age and period. The upholders of truth are exceptions. How many of the ulema find an honourable mention in the Muslim history of the last 1,300 years? There was one Imam Hanbal, one Ibn Taimiyya. In India, we remember no ulema except Shah Waliullah and his family. The courage of Alf Sani is beyond doubt but those who filled the royal office with complaints against him and got him imprisoned were also ulema. Where are they now? Does anybody show any respect to them?

Q: Maulana, what is wrong if Pakistan becomes a reality? After all, "Islam" is being used to pursue and protect the unity of the community.

A: You are using the name of Islam for a cause that is not right by Islamic standards. Muslim history bears testimony to many such enormities. In the battle of Jamal [fought between Imam Ali and Hazrat Ayesha, widow of the holy prophet], Korans were displayed on lances. Was that right? In Karbala, the family members of the holy prophet were martyred by those Muslims who claimed companionship of the prophet. Was that right? Hajjaj was a Muslim general and he subjected the holy mosque at Mecca to brutal attack. Was that right? No sacred words can justify or sanctify a false motive.

If Pakistan was right for Muslims then I would have supported it. But I see clearly the dangers inherent in the demand. I do not expect people to follow me but it is not possible for me to go against the call of my conscience. People generally submit either to coercion or to the lessons of their experience. Muslims will not hear anything against Pakistan unless they experience it. Today they can call white black but they will not give up Pakistan. The only way it can be stopped now is either for the government not to concede it or for Mr Jinnah himself – if he agrees to some new proposal.

Now, as I gather from the attitude of my own colleagues in the (Congress) working committee, the division of India appears to be certain. But I must warn that the evil consequences of partition will not affect India alone, Pakistan will be equally haunted by them. The partition will be based on the religion of the population and not based on any natural barrier like mountain, desert or river. A line will be drawn; it is difficult to say how durable it would be.

We must remember that an entity conceived in hatred will last only as long as that hatred lasts. This hatred will overwhelm the relations between India and Pakistan. In this situation, it will not be possible for India and Pakistan to become friends and live amicably unless some catastrophic event takes place. The politics of partition itself will act as a barrier between the two countries. It will not be possible for Pakistan to accommodate all the Muslims of India, a task beyond her territorial capability. On the other hand, it will not be possible for the Hindus to stay, especially in West Pakistan. They will be thrown out or leave on their own. This will have its repercussions in India and the Indian Muslims will have three options before them:

1. They become victims of loot and brutalities and migrate to Pakistan; but how many Muslims can find shelter there?

2. They become subject to murder and other excesses. A substantial number of Muslims will pass through this ordeal until the bitter memories of partition are forgotten and the generation that had lived through it completes its natural term.

3. A good number of Muslims, haunted by poverty, political wilderness and regional depredation, decide to renounce Islam.

The prominent Muslims who are supporters of the Muslim League will leave for Pakistan. The wealthy Muslims will take over industry and business and monopolise the economy of Pakistan. But more than 30 million Muslims will be left behind in India. What promise does Pakistan hold for them? The situation that will arise after the expulsion of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan will be still more dangerous for them. Pakistan itself will be afflicted by many serious problems. The greatest danger will come from international powers who will seek to control the new country and with the passage of time this control will become tight. India will have no problem with this outside interference, as it will sense danger and hostility from Pakistan.

The other important point that has escaped Mr Jinnah’s attention is Bengal. He does not know that Bengal disdains outside leadership and rejects it sooner or later. During World War II Mr Fazlul Haq revolted against Jinnah and was thrown out of the Muslim League. Mr HS Suhrawardy does not hold Jinnah in high esteem. Why only the Muslim League, look at the history of the Congress. The revolt of Subhas Chandra Bose is known to all. Gandhiji was not happy with the presidentship of Bose and turned the tide against him by going on a fast unto death at Rajkot. Bose rose against Gandhiji and disassociated himself from the Congress. The environment of Bengal is such that it disfavours leadership from outside and rises in revolt when it senses danger to its rights and interests.

The confidence of East Pakistan will not erode as long as Jinnah and Liaquat Ali are alive. But after them, any small incident will create resentment and disaffection. I feel that it will not be possible for East Pakistan to stay with West Pakistan for any considerable period of time. There is nothing common between the two regions except that they call themselves Muslims. But the fact of being Muslim has never created durable political unity anywhere in the world. The Arab world is before us; they subscribe to a common religion, a common civilisation and culture and speak a common language. In fact, they acknowledge even territorial unity. But there is no political unity among them. Their systems of government are different and they are often engaged in mutual recrimination and hostility.

On the other hand, the language, customs and way of life of East Pakistan are totally different from West Pakistan. The moment the creative warmth of Pakistan cools down, the contradictions will emerge and will acquire assertive overtones. These will be fuelled by the clash of interests of international powers and consequently both wings will separate. After the separation of East Pakistan, whenever it happens, West Pakistan will become the battleground of regional contradictions and disputes. The assertion of sub-national identities of Punjab, Sindh, Frontier and Balochistan will open the doors for outside interference. It will not be long before the international powers use the diverse elements of Pakistani political leadership to break the country on the lines of Balkan and Arab states. Maybe at that stage we will ask ourselves what have we gained and what have we lost.

The real issue is economic development and progress, it certainly is not religion. Muslim business leaders have doubts about their own ability and competitive spirit. They are so used to official patronage and favours that they fear new freedom and liberty. They advocate the two-nation theory to conceal their fears and want to have a Muslim state where they have the monopoly to control the economy without any competition from competent rivals. It will be interesting to watch how long they can keep this deception alive.

I feel that right from its inception, Pakistan will face some very serious problems:

1. The incompetent political leadership will pave the way for military dictatorship as it has happened in many Muslim countries.

2. The heavy burden of foreign debt.

3. Absence of friendly relationship with neighbours and the possibility of armed conflict.

4. Internal unrest and regional conflicts.

5. The loot of national wealth by the neo-rich and industrialists of Pakistan.

6. The apprehension of class war as a result of exploitation by the neo-rich.

7. The dissatisfaction and alienation of the youth from religion and the collapse of the theory of Pakistan.

8. The conspiracies of the international powers to control Pakistan.

In this situation, the stability of Pakistan will be under strain and the Muslim countries will be in no position to provide any worthwhile help. The assistance from other sources will not come without strings and it will force both ideological and territorial compromises.

Q: But the question is how Muslims can keep their community identity intact and how they can inculcate the attributes of the citizens of a Muslim state.
A: Hollow words cannot falsify the basic realities nor slanted questions make the answers deficient. It amounts to distortion of the discourse. What is meant by community identity? If this community identity has remained intact during the British slavery, how will it come under threat in a free India in whose affairs Muslims will be equal participants? What attributes of the Muslim state do you wish to cultivate? The real issue is the freedom of faith and worship and who can put a cap on that freedom. Will independence reduce the 90 million Muslims into such a helpless state that they will feel constrained in enjoying their religious freedom? If the British as a world power could not snatch this liberty, what magic or power do the Hindus have to deny this freedom of religion? These questions have been raised by those who, under the influence of western culture, have renounced their own heritage and are now raising dust through political gimmickry.

Muslim history is an important part of Indian history. Do you think the Muslim kings were serving the cause of Islam? They had a nominal relationship with Islam; they were not Islamic preachers. Muslims of India owe their gratitude to Sufis, and many of these divines were treated by the kings very cruelly. Most of the kings created a large band of ulema who were an obstacle in the path of the propagation of Islamic ethos and values. Islam in its pristine form had a tremendous appeal and in the first century won the hearts and minds of a large number of people living in and around Hijaz. But the Islam that came to India was different, the carriers were non-Arabs and the real spirit was missing. Still, the imprint of the Muslim period is writ large on the culture, music, art, architecture and languages of India. What do the cultural centres of India, like Delhi and Lucknow, represent? The underlying Muslim spirit is all too obvious.

If the Muslims still feel under threat and believe that they will be reduced to slavery in free India then I can only pray for their faith and hearts. If a man becomes disenchanted with life, he can be helped to revival but if someone is timid and lacks courage then it is not possible to help him become brave and gutsy. The Muslims as a community have become cowards. They have no fear of god; instead, they fear men. This explains why they are so obsessed with threats to their existence – a figment of their imagination.

After British takeover, the government committed all possible excesses against the Muslims. But Muslims did not cease to exist. On the contrary, they registered a growth that was more than average. The Muslim cultural ethos and values have their own charm. Then, India has large Muslim neighbours on three sides. Why on earth will the majority in this country be interested [in wiping] out the Muslims? How will it promote their self- interest? Is it so easy to finish 90 million people? In fact, Muslim culture has such attraction that I shall not be surprised if it comes to have the largest following in free India.

The world needs both a durable peace and a philosophy of life. If the Hindus can run after Marx and undertake scholarly studies of the philosophy and wisdom of the West, they do not disdain Islam and will be happy to benefit from its principles. In fact, they are more familiar with Islam and acknowledge that Islam does not mean parochialism of a hereditary community or a despotic system of governance. Islam is a universal call to establish peace on the basis of human equality. They know that Islam is the proclamation of a messenger who calls to the worship of god and not his own worship. Islam means freedom from all social and economic discriminations and the reorganisation of society on three basic principles of god-consciousness, righteous action and knowledge.

In fact, it is we Muslims and our extremist behaviour that has created an aversion among non-Muslims for Islam. If we had not allowed our selfish ambitions to soil the purity of Islam then many seekers of truth would have found comfort in the bosom of Islam. Pakistan has nothing to do with Islam; it is a political demand that is projected by the Muslim League as the national goal of Indian Muslims. I feel it is not the solution to the problems Muslims are facing. In fact, it is bound to create more problems.

The holy prophet has said, "God has made the whole earth a mosque for me." Now do not ask me to support the idea of the partition of a mosque. If the nine crore Muslims were thinly scattered all over India and a demand was made to reorganise the states in a manner to ensure their majority in one or two regions that would be understandable. Again, such a demand would not have been right from an Islamic viewpoint but justifiable on administrative grounds. But the situation as it exists is drastically different. All the border states of India have Muslim majorities sharing borders with Muslim countries. Tell me, who can eliminate these populations?

By demanding Pakistan we are turning our eyes away from the history of the last 1,000 years and, if I may use the League terminology, throwing more than 30 million Muslims into the lap of "Hindu Raj". The Hindu-Muslim problem that has created political tension between the Congress and the League will become a source of dispute between the two states and with the aid of international powers this may erupt into full-scale war any time in the future.

The question is often raised that if the idea of Pakistan is so fraught with dangers for the Muslims, why is it being opposed by the Hindus? I feel that the opposition to the demand is coming from two quarters. One is represented by those who genuinely feel concerned about imperial machinations and strongly believe that a free, united India will be in a better position to defend itself. On the other hand, there is a section who opposes Pakistan with the motive to provoke Muslims to become more determined in their demand and thus get rid of them. Muslims have every right to demand constitutional safeguards but the partition of India cannot promote their interests. The demand is a politically incorrect solution of a communal problem.

In future, India will be faced with class problems, not communal disputes; the conflict will be between capital and labour. The communist and socialist movements are growing and it is not possible to ignore them. These movements will increasingly fight for the protection of the interests of the underclass. The Muslim capitalists and the feudal classes are apprehensive of this impending threat. Now they have given this whole issue a communal colour and have turned the economic issue into a religious dispute. But Muslims alone are not responsible for it. This strategy was first adopted by the British government and then endorsed by the political minds of Aligarh. Later, Hindu short-sightedness made matters worse and now freedom has become contingent on the partition of India.

Jinnah himself was an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. In one Congress session Sarojini Naidu had commended him with this title. He was a disciple of Dadabhai Naoroji. He had refused to join the 1906 deputation of Muslims that initiated communal politics in India. In 1919 he stood firmly as a nationalist and opposed Muslim demands before the Joint Select Committee. On October 3, 1925, in a letter to The Times of India, he rubbished the suggestion that the Congress is a Hindu outfit. In the All-Parties Conferences of 1925 and 1928 he strongly favoured a joint electorate. While speaking at the national assembly in 1925, he said, "I am a nationalist first and a nationalist last" and exhorted his colleagues, be they Hindus or Muslims, "not to raise communal issues in the House and help make the Assembly a national institution in the truest sense of the term".

In 1928 Jinnah supported the Congress call to boycott the Simon Commission. Till 1937, he did not favour the demand to partition India. In his message to various student bodies, he stressed the need to work for Hindu-Muslim unity. But he felt aggrieved when the Congress formed governments in seven states and ignored the Muslim League. In 1940 he decided to pursue the partition demand to check Muslim political decline. In short, the demand for Pakistan is his response to his own political experiences. Mr Jinnah has every right to his opinion about me but I have no doubts about his intelligence. As a politician, he has worked overtime to fortify Muslim communalism and the demand for Pakistan. Now it has become a matter of prestige for him and he will not give it up at any cost.

Q: It is clear that Muslims are not going to turn away from their demand for Pakistan. Why have they become so impervious to all reason and logic of arguments?
A: It is difficult, rather, impossible to fight against the misplaced enthusiasm of a mob but to suppress one’s conscience is worse than death. Today the Muslims are not walking, they are flowing. The problem is that Muslims have not learnt to walk steady; they either run or flow with the tide. When a group of people lose confidence and self-respect, they are surrounded by imaginary doubts and dangers and fail to make a distinction between the right and the wrong. The true meaning of life is realised not through numerical strength but through firm faith and righteous action. British politics has sown many seeds of fear and distrust in the mental field of Muslims. Now they are in a frightful state, bemoaning the departure of the British and demanding partition before the foreign masters leave. Do they believe that partition will avert all the dangers to their lives and bodies? If these dangers are real then they will still haunt their borders and any armed conflict will result in much greater loss of lives and possessions.

Q: But Hindus and Muslims are two different nations with different and disparate inclinations. How can unity between the two be achieved?
A: This is an obsolete debate. I have seen the correspondence between Allama Iqbal and Maulana Hussain Ahmad Madani on the subject. In the Koran, the term qaum has been used not only for the community of believers but has also been used for distinct human groupings generally. What do we wish to achieve by raising this debate about the etymological scope of terms like millat [community], qaum [nation] and ummah [group]? In religious terms, India is home to many people – the Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Parsis, Sikhs, etc. The differences between the Hindu religion and Islam are vast in scope. But these differences cannot be allowed to become an obstacle in the path of India gaining her freedom nor do the two distinct and different systems of faith negate the idea of unity of India. The issue is of our national independence and how we can secure it. Freedom is a blessing and is the right of every human being. It cannot be divided on the basis of religion.

Muslims must realise that they are bearers of a universal message. They are not a racial or regional grouping in whose territory others cannot enter. Strictly speaking, Muslims in India are not one community; they are divided among many well-entrenched sects. You can unite them by arousing their anti-Hindu sentiment but you cannot unite them in the name of Islam. To them Islam means undiluted loyalty to their own sect. Apart from Wahhabi, Sunni and Shia, there are innumerable groups who owe allegiance to different saints and divines. Small issues like raising hands during prayer and saying ‘Amen’ loudly have created disputes that defy solution. The ulema have used the instrument of takfir [fatwas declaring someone an infidel] liberally.

Earlier, they used to take Islam to the disbelievers; now they take away Islam from the believers. Islamic history is full of instances of how good and pious Muslims were branded kafirs. Prophets alone had the capability to cope with these mind-boggling situations. Even they had to pass through times of affliction and trial. The fact is that when reason and intelligence are abandoned and attitudes become fossilised then the job of the reformer becomes very difficult.

But today the situation is worse than ever. Muslims have become firm in their communalism; they prefer politics to religion and follow their worldly ambitions as commands of religion. History bears testimony to the fact that in every age we ridiculed those who pursued the good with consistency, snuffed out the brilliant examples of sacrifice and tore the flags of selfless service. Who are we, the ordinary mortals; even high-ranking prophets were not spared by these custodians of traditions and customs.

Q: You closed down your journal, Al-Hilal, a long time back. Was it due to your disappointment with the Muslims who were wallowing in intellectual desolation or did you feel like [you were] proclaiming azan in a barren desert?
A: I abandoned Al-Hilal not because I had lost faith in its truth. This journal created great awareness among a large section of Muslims. They renewed their faith in Islam, in human freedom and in consistent pursuit of righteous goals. In fact, my own life was greatly enriched by this experience and I felt like those who had the privilege of learning under the companionship of the messenger of god. My own voice entranced me and under its impact, I burnt out like a phoenix. Al-Hilal had served its purpose and a new age was dawning. Based on my experiences, I made a reappraisal of the situation and decided to devote all my time and energy to the attainment of our national freedom. I was firm in my belief that the freedom of Asia and Africa largely depends on India’s freedom and Hindu-Muslim unity is key to India’s freedom.

Even before the First World War, I had realised that India was destined to attain freedom and no power on earth would be able to deny it. I was also clear in my mind about the role of Muslims. I ardently wished that Muslims would learn to walk together with their countrymen and not give an opportunity to history to say that when Indians were fighting for their independence, Muslims were looking on as spectators. Let nobody say that instead of fighting the waves, they were standing on the banks and showing mirth at the drowning of boats carrying the freedom fighters.

(This article was published in Covert magazine, November 1, 2009.)

Courtesy: Covert; www.covertmagazine.com

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2010 Year 16 No.147, Focus

1...2,6332,6342,635...2,696 Page 2,634 of 2,696

Dereliction of duty

How Gujarat’s top cops deserted residents of Gulberg Society

Travesty of truth

How intellectuals sell their soul

A Gandhian with a difference

Muslim women struggle for peace on International Human Rights Day

My cousin, the suicide bomber

Alpine Bigotry

A man who knew the future

CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

JOIN OUR MAILING LIST

Important Links

Other Links

CONNECT