Former Member of Parliament from the Raiganj parliamentary constituency, CPI (M) leader Mohammed Salim and CPI(M) polit bureau member lost the elections this time. But in January this year, he submitted a crucial dissenting note to the now lapsed Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 to the Joint Parliamentary Committee appointed. Given the key issues raised, and the fact that the second tenure of this regime is likely to see a renewed push for this piece of legislation that seeks to fundamentally alter the foundations of Indian Citizenship, Sabrangindia brings to its readers this Dissent Note.

Hopefully, even a fragmented opposition will be able to see through the designs of this regime and mount a sustained and well informed opposition to the proposed changes in India’s Citizenship Law.
 
Point One:  Functioning of Joint Parliamentary Committee
The tardy, even selective manner of functioning of the Committee is a matter of concern. The very purpose of such Committees –constituted to review and critique proposed amendments to Indian statutes– are meant to be consultative, not mere symbolic tokenisms that reduce the process to a farce. The Committee on such a vital issue such as Citizenship that draws its Rights and Base from the Indian Constitution and ought to have been treated with both substantive rigour and procedural correctitude..

For three years since its constitution, this Committee on the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016, never took the task seriously despite the fact that it was constituted on an all important issue. For months together, the Committee never met, when it did so in quick succession and abruptly like last 10 days during Winter Session.

Most Importantly, the discussions and consultations with stakeholders have been reduced to a complete farce. The states of West Bengal. Tripura, Jharkand, Orissa, Andamans were never visited. The visits to these states were required and the absence therein is stark especially given the fact that this is where, mainly Bengali speaking migrants live. There was one almost wholly aborted trip to Assam, a troubled visit, where in all the rest of the places internal Bengali migrant are being subjected to harassment. This will enhance this harassment especially the target will be Bengali Muslims as is possibly intended by a regime that is governed by a supremacist and majoritarian ideology.

The manner in which pre-Organised Memoranda,(copies and single page zeroxes) near identical, in their thousands (mainly from Assam, some from Kolkata) were collectively submitted by fly by night operators to make a show of the fact that people have been consulted further reduced the consultative nature of the committee to a mere farce. Given the grave nature of the amendments being sought, the Committee’s functioning ought to have been more transparent, consultative and pro-active: more meetings with stake holders and affected people were required and detailed talks and deliberations needed to be held. One visit to Assam (after much persuasion, and that too an aborted visit, given the protests) was not even followed up by a second visit as promised.

Point Two: Basic Fundamentals of Indian Constitution Undergoing Change/Shift
Indian Citizenship is a fundamental right and premise drawn from India’s Constitution that is republican and secular. Indian Citizenship is based on the Fundamental Premise of Equality of All regardless of Gender, Caste, Class, Community, Region or Language, principles enshrined in the
Preamble, Citizenship Provisions (Articles 5 to 11) and the Fundamental Rights.  

Besides the guiding principle of India has been the Principle of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (Sanskrit: वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम्) that has meant that all persecuted peoples, be it Jews, Yemenese, Parsees (Zorastrians), Iranians, Afganis, Tibetans, Bangladeshis have all found home here. The phrase appears is engraved at the entrance hall of the parliament of India.  [It means:
 
Point Three: A Political Manifesto Not a Statute Change
The Machiavellean Aims and Ideology behind the proposed Bill as it Stands shows that these Fundamentals have Changed and are being Changed without Democratic Debate and Discussion by a Regime that has reduced Healthy Debate within a Democracy to a Farce.
Indian Citizenship flows from the Constitution of India that grants it as a Fundamental Right. Right cannot be Religion Specific or Country  of origin Specific.

This Amendment does not offer solutions to the issues and problems that the country is facing around but will actually create more problems. Divisiveness and Suspicions between Peoples and Languages will Mount. According to the proposed Amendments, Citizenship will now be determined on the Language and Religion (and Country of Origin) of the proposed applicants.

This actually meets the Ideological Persuasion of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that regards this move as “the Unfinished Agenda of Partition.” India and the Sub-Continent has already lived through one holocaust caused by religious divisions. This will create again the potential of several mini-holocausts of the kind Nellie, Assam has seen in 1983 and other parts of India have also witnessed.

The proposed Amendments extending an open invitation to all Hindus from persecuted neighbouring countries and the underlying threat is that it is Muslims who can be sent off, or reduced to pathetic conditions in Detention Camps or face inhuman treatment as usual suspects.

Point Four: Assam on a Tinder Box and the National Register of Citizens(NRC):
The Joint Parliamentary Committee considering the bill decided on Monday to move ahead with adopting a draft report after all opposition amendments were voted down. The government has argued that the bill is intended for those fleeing persecution and is not for economic migrants seeking a better deal. The Bill proposes citizenship to six persecuted minorities — Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Parsis, Christians and Buddhists — from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh who came to India before 2014. Dissenting Opposition members have argued for the inclusion of all refugees and persecuted persons whether from the abovementioned countries or even ‘Sri lanka or Myanmaar.’

The implications of the committee having cleared an amendment moved by BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi seeking to drop legal proceedings against six persecuted minorities, is potentially disstrous and discriminatory. The amendment, if accepted, could mean that Bangladeshi Hindus lodged in detention centres in Assam, facing deportation or declared illegal foreigners would get relief while their compatriots, simply because they are Muslims, would face hardships and persecution.

In fact the proposed Bill will ensure complete institutionalised incarceration and persecution of the Rohingyas facing acute persecution from Myanmaar and not being offered any succour even by Bangladesh.

The proposed amendment, in its current formulation, seeks to exclude undocumented immigrants belonging to certain minority communities from Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan (all majority-Muslim countries) — Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians—from the category of illegal migrants making them eligible to apply for Indian citizenship. The list of religious minorities, inexplicably, excludes Muslim groups like the Ahmadis, who are also among the most persecuted religious minority in Pakistan. This essentially means that, while non-Muslim migrants become eligible for Indian citizenship, Muslims are denied this right.

There has been a strong resistance to the Bill in the BJP-ruled Assam as it would pave the way for giving citizenship, mostly to illegal Hindu migrants from Bangladesh, who came to Assam after March 1971, in violation of the agreement in the Assam Accord of 1985. The BJP government in Assam is fiercely opposed to the Bill. The BJP’s ally Asom Gana Parishad too has been protesting against it and has threatened to walk out of the alliance if the Bill is passed.

Over 40 lakh people in Assam have been excluded from the final draft of the National Register of Citizens published in July 2018. Reports suggests that 33 lakh of those excluded have successfully re-applied. The underlying intent of the proposed Amendments is to ensure that those ‘Hindu Bengalis’ excluded from the NRC are promised (whether or not this is eventually legally or Constitutionally valid) to be brought in through the Citizenship Bill Amendments. The socio political outcome will be disastrous: People within Assamand Bengal if not elsehwere will be divided, again. between the ‘Hindu’ and the ‘Muslim.’

Betrayal of the Assam Accord
There is a deep rooted contradiction in the bill as regards the terms of the Assam Accord — which calls for repatriation of all migrants irrespective of religion who arrived after March 24, 1971 — and this remains unresolved. The terms of the National Register of Citizens will exclude Hindus from Bangladesh but they will be covered by the provisions of the bill. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to address a rally in Silchar on January 4, 2019 and given the tone and tenor of his and the BJP Leadership’s Provocative Exhorations on the issue, his speech is likely to create dissensions and divisions. The AGP in Assam has strongly protested this Bill with its Amendments.

The JPC’s decision to apparently ride roughshod over political debate and opposition is yet another example of this dispensation pushing through legislation without necessary political debate. In this instance, the ruling party appears unwilling and unprepared to engage in a serious public debate on an issue that involves how the membership in the nation is defined. Winning elections by any means necessary is its priority.

Assam today because of the controversial NRC process sits on a tinder box, a volcano. These proposed amendments to the Citizenship Act will only inflame the situation further causing unimaginable social turmoil and even targeted violence.
For the present central leadership of the Bharaitya Janata Party (BJP) and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), this basic alteration of Indian citizenship is in line with what they see as the unfinished business of the Partition. They believe that Indian citizenship laws should recognize a right of return for Hindus from Pakistan and Bangladesh to India, similar to the right of Jews to return to Israel, or of ethnic Germans to Germany.

Point Five: Regime Unhappy with Rejection of India’s Rejection of Two Nation Theory
The proposed Amendments will do nothing short of foment Political, Religion, Linguistic and Ethnic Divisions. Those of this dominating persuasion are unhappy with the Indian Constitution’s unequivocal rejection of the two-nation theory. Today, based on the fundamentals of equality and non-discrimination within the constitution, Indian law cannot distinguish between Hindu and Muslim arrivals from Pakistan and Bangladesh. The real purpose of the citizenship amendment bill seems to be to introduce this distinction into India’s citizenship laws.
The BJP’s 2014 manifesto rather crudely states that “India shall remain a natural home for persecuted Hindus and they shall be welcome to seek refuge here.” Such a statement mimics the policy of only one other country, Israel—which sees itself as a sanctuary for Jews who are given an automatic right to enter the country and earn citizenship.

In February 2014, Prime Minister Modi (then on an election campaign) infamously said, “We have a responsibility towards Hindus who are harassed and suffer in other countries. India is the only place for them.” Israel, it is well known, has a dismal track record not just on the human rights of other peoples in general but of the Palestinians at the West Bank, in particular.

In the paragraphs preceding this ill-considered statement in its 2014 manifesto, the BJP praised its “NRIs, PIOs and professionals settled abroad” who are a “vast reservoir to articulate the national interests and affairs globally.” The hypocrisy is patent. These NRIs and PIOs are able to live in these countries because of the relatively liberal immigration policies of their countries of residence. The BJP’s concern, in its manifesto, is only for middle-class and upper-class professionals (they too, Hindu), and it provides no reassurances for the Indian workers across the world whose remittances support their families and Indian foreign exchange balances.

Point Six: India’s Compromised Refugee Policy
In the early 1980s, xenophobic utterances—fiercely anti-Bangladeshi statements—had catalyzed targeted pogroms in Assam, where BJP now rules, but dictated its political consolidation in other parts of “mainstream” India. This occurred even as the term “Bangladeshi” was deliberately collapsed at really meaning “Muslim,” just as the terms “Pakistani,” “Muslim” and “anti-patriotic/national” are potently expressed interchangeably.

It was in 1983 that the government in New Delhi enacted The Illegal Migrants Determination by Tribunal (IMDT) Act, which was an Act of the Parliament of India implemented by the Indira Gandhi government. It was struck down by the Supreme Court of India in 2005 in Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India. It described the procedures to detect illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and expel them from Assam. The Act was pushed through mainly on the grounds that it provided special protections against undue harassment to the “minorities” affected by the Assam Agitation. It was applicable to the state of Assam only whereas in other states, detection of foreigners is done under the Foreigners Act, 1946. The current chief minister who shifted political allegiances to join the BJP on the eve of the state elections was the petitioner in the case.
Operation Pushback and Operation Flush Out derive as much from xenophobic political pressure as from India’s lack of a refugee policy fully in line with international law.

Re-Look at India’s Refugee Policy
More than anything else, a closer look at India’s refugee policy is in order. We are neither a signatory to the United Nations’ 1951 refugee convention nor its 1967 protocol. The reasons why India did not join these is based on a genuine understanding of the state of affairs then — the 1951 convention defined “refugees” as Europeans who had to be re-settled and suggested that “refugees” were those who fled the “non-Free world” for the “Free world.”

It was in December 1950, at the UN’s third committee, that Vijaylakshmi Pandit (sister of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister) objected to the Euro-centrism of the definition of refugee.“Suffering knows no racial or political boundaries; it is the same for all,” she said.“As international tension increases, vast masses of humanity might be uprooted and displaced.” The refugee crisis across the world is now severe for reasons of war and economic distress. Three years later, the foreign secretary, R.K. Nehru, told the UNHCR representative that the UN agency helped refugees from “the so-called non-free world into the free world. We do not recognize such a division of the world.”

Despite of its reluctance to join these international conventions, India has obligations under international law. India has signed onto the 1967 UN Declaration on Territorial Asylum and the 1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights. Even though it is not a member of the 1951 refugee convention that frames the work of the UNHCR, India is on its executive committee, which supervises the agency’s material assistance programme.

Following this international human rights law, the Indian Supreme Court ruled in 1996 that refugees could not be forcibly repatriated because of the protections to life and personal liberty in Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

India’s current refugee policy is governed by the Foreigners Act of 1946 that does not even use the term “refugee.” Without a clear-cut policy, Indian governments have, over the years, dealt with different refugee populations depending on their political worldview at the time. For example, India’s treatment of Tibetans conforms to its relationship with China.

It is this absence of a cohesive refugee policy that set the ground for Operation Pushback in the 1990s, which used the Bangladeshi refugees as a tool for communal politics. And today, this is dictating a political desire to fundamentally alter Indian citizenship law.

In the United Nations too, things have changed. The fundamental principles on which a universal and accepted regime on refugees and asylum has evolved is universality, under the UDHR or the 1951 Convention on Refugees that mandates that all people who seek refuge should be treated equally.

I strongly argue that India—by its standing in various international protocols—has a responsibility to all asylum seekers and migrants, and must treat them equally. To do anything less than that would move India to join the wave of anti-immigration hysteria that has taken hold in Europe and North America, and has been structured into state policy in Israel. Worse than anything it would be back-peddling on our own tradition of a visionary and inclusive international foreign policy.

It was not long after the deplorable Operation Pushback of the 1990s that the former chief justice of India, P. N. Bhagwati, chaired a panel to create a model law for India on refugee rights. Bhagwati—who had also served as regional adviser for Asia and the Pacific for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights — suggested that “an appropriate legal structure or framework” would give Indian states “a measure of certainty” in their policy-making and it would give “greater protection for the refugees.” Bhagwati’s model law defined refugees as people outside their country of origin who could not return there because of “a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, sex, ethnic identity, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

This was a very broad and important standard, which would greatly improve Indian refugee policy. Bhagwati’s report—like so many other well-meaning commissions—has made little impact. It was turned into a draft law—the Refugees and Asylum Seekers bill, but was unable to leave the home ministry for Parliament because of pressure from the Indian security establishment and various political calculations. Even before the extreme right-wing present government assumed power, earlier political formulations simply did not have the will to see the law through.

So today, in 2019, when India’s parliament seeks to fundamentally alter the very basis of Indian citizenship laws, and may even do this without honouring Indian federalism, the implications of the change are huge for the country and subcontinent.

The Indian Constitution’s rejection of the two-nation theory is crucially important for the status of Indian Muslims as equal citizens.
The proposed amendments will impact not only the sense of security of Indian Muslims, but also the future security of Hindus in Bangladesh, and the credibility of India’s historical position on the Kashmir question. A hard national question across the political spectrum is in order. The implications of the bill are far more profound, ill conceived and downright dangerous.

I therefore demand, in this Dissent Note,  that this Bill must be withdrawn.

Mohammed Salim, ed Member of Parliament, CPI-M
 

The post Why Opp MPs Strongly Dissented against the Citizenship Amendment Bill, 2016 and How appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Coming to the elections in Uttar Pradesh, time will tell whether these leaders are mere paper tigers, propped by a shallow and sensational media. Are these leaders coming forward to salvage the community or salvage themselves?

The experience of the Left, nationwide, has been a vote of confidence and trust from the minorities who see us as genuinely fighting against the former NDA and for secular values and issues.

A very interesting development has been taking place in Kerala. Since pre-independence days, right wing reactionary forces, from all religious groups, have been deeply suspicious of the Left and have actively campaigned against their constituents, Hindu, Muslim or others, voting for the Left. However, we see now, especially in Kerala, in Muslim League strongholds like Mallapuram, a left wing candidate, Comrade Jaleel, defeating a former minister, Kunjalikutty. Muslim women played a huge role in this victory for the Left.

In areas where the Left has a strong base, all communities, including the Muslim community, are active participants, even voting for us. This is a triumph of the secular democratic approach. Minorities have recognised that the Left’s struggle against communalism is to represent their genuine cause, not to appease the community. Hindu or Muslim, both Advani and Kunjalikutty are today viewed as self-seeking leaders rather than leaders of their community.

Coming back to the developments in UP following Assam, I see the forums that are emerging as bargaining forums, nothing more.

In Assam, the formation of Ajmal’s outfit ended up by helping the Congress to win and keeping the AGP out. The Jamiat Ulama-e-Hind (Assam) broke away from its national unit and served as a network for Ajmal’s party. Badruddin Ajmal is the state unit president of the JUH, Assam. This is unlikely to happen in Uttar Pradesh and without the grass roots organisational network of either the JUH or the Jamaat-e-Islami it is not easy to fight or win an election.

‘What is needed is not a Muslim party but a party that is sensitive to Muslim concerns’

Salman Khursheed
President, UP Congress(I)

Indian Muslims have scrupulously stayed away from Muslim parties. This tradition has come out of both the Indian Muslims' instinctive understanding of what partition has done to their cause and the wider secular democratic cause as also their comfort and ease with the Congress party, traditionally a party that has represented them. It is only in the recent past, when for one reason and another and in varying degrees Indian Muslims experienced a loss of faith in the Congress, that they have exercised alternate choices.

As far as the Muslim party experiment in UP is concerned, it is the demolition of the Babri Masjid and now the 'success' of the Assam experiment that has some people convinced that such an alternative is feasible. In my opinion, it is not. What is needed is not a Muslim party but a party that is sensitive to Muslim concerns, one that provides a wider forum.

Muslims form 18 per cent of the vote in UP. Some people extend the erroneous argument that 'if a Yadav can become a CM, and a Dalit or a Lodi can, why can't a Muslim?' What they fail to see is that the Yadav or the Dalit or the Lodi/Kurmi did not become CMs on the strength of their caste alone. They did so with the goodwill of other castes. Now with a Muslims-only party, which caste will support or join a Muslim conglomerate?

This apart, the leaders who are talking of all this are used to speaking an exclusionist language that speaks only the language of their community and does not include others. While overtly they are trying to hurt Mulayam's government, they will end up sending a blow to all secular forces.

In Assam the establishment with its stand on the IMDT Act was a clear target. Here in UP, except for the general overall disenchantment of the Muslim with the SP and BSP, there is no clear-cut target so far.

As for the Congress and its 'failure to draw in adequate Muslim participation and representation', this is a genuine problem that the party needs to address. Today there are few leaders and participants from the community who are joining fresh, there is almost no new supply, where are the new faces? The party must find a way to discover new faces and it is certainly up to the party to actively do something in this regard. The Congress constantly faces criticism about our genuine secular and minority rights concerns. But can anyone say that we are no different from previous regimes?

In the context of UP we also need to remember that Mulayam is a wily leader. The first sign of an emergent leader from the community where he has his own base and who is a genuine challenge will be jointly defeated by the SP and BSP.

‘The future lies in strengthening secular parties’

Mushirul Hasan
Vice chancellor, Jamia Millia Islamia, Delhi

The very principal of political action based on religion and religious solidarity is, I think, highly objectionable because in secular democratic India within the existing democratic and secular structures it is still possible for grievances to be addressed.

Be it through the Congress, the Left or any other centrist party. Lessons that we have learnt in the past from various initiatives must not be forgotten, for example in Bihar, as also in UP, where the Majlis-e-Mushawarat was formed. This attempt arose out of constitutional and secular motivations under the leadership of Dr Faridi and Dr Syed Mahmood. The experiment did not work and in fact was counterproductive, leading to the polarisation of not just votes but also sentiments. In that limited sense, the developments in UP do not augur well for secular democratic politics as a whole.

It becomes possible for alternate political parties to exploit the formation of such a Muslim front to mobilise followers around Hindutva and sectarian symbols.

In the long run if the motive is to focus on Muslim grievances – i.e. the genuine issues of exclusion, under-representation, discrimination – this is best and most effectively done from a secular platform rather than one driven by religious identity.

This discussion must also take into consideration the demographic distribution of Muslim votes that militate against corporators, MLAs or MPs getting voted in.

By and large – and I believe this is a good and healthy trend – the Muslim electorate has a wider choice than 10 years ago and it is possible, strategically and tactically, to exercise these choices. The future lies in strengthening secular parties rather than the formation of sectarian forums or options. They, ordinary Indian Muslims, have time and time again exposed the myth of the Muslim vote but our so-called specialists and commentators simply cannot come to terms with the fact that the Muslim community is a differentiated community, not a monolith. Given the image of the Muslim, the expert commentator is desperately in search of this monolith because they just cannot accept the fact that the Muslim vote is as complex and as differentiated as any caste. 

 ‘Muslims are being taken for granted by secular parties’

Qasim Rasool
Member, Executive Council, Jamaat-e-Islami, India and Convenor, Babri Masjid Action Committee

The executive body of the Jamaat-e-Islami is to meet next month where it will take a decision on where it stands vis-à-vis the newly formed PDF and UPUDF. All aspects of the issue will be taken into consideration before we take a decision. We will, for example, have to consider the fact of a widespread feeling among Muslims that they have been taken completely for granted by most secular parties and leaders, including Mulayam Singh Yadav in UP and Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar. Two thirds of the total votes polled by Mulayam Singh Yadav, for example, are Muslim votes while the Yadavs contribute only 25 per cent. But of the 1,300 police constables recently appointed by his government, 1,000 are Yadavs while only 30 Muslims were selected. The case with Laloo Prasad Yadav in Bihar is no different. As for Mayawati, she had no qualms about campaigning for Narendra Modi even after the Gujarat genocide. So many Muslims are asking: if Yadavs and Dalits can form their own party what is wrong if Muslims do the same. At the same time, there is the real problem of communal polarisation if Muslims form their own front. Besides, there is the problem of sectarian fragmentation of Muslims in UP and then there is the image of Imam Bukhari. In principle, the Jamaat-e-Islami believes in supporting only such political formations that keep the interests of all communities and castes in mind.

Bukhari appealed to Muslims to vote for BJP in the 2004 Lok Sabha elections'

Kamal Farooqui
Chartered accountant, member, Milli Council, member, All India Muslim Personal Law Board

I cannot accept any party formed on a religious or communal basis in my secular country. History shows that Muslims on the subcontinent have not favoured a communal party either during the freedom movement or since independence. The Muslim masses and the ulema strongly opposed the partition of the country. It was only the feudal landlords and their kind who supported the movement for Pakistan. Post-independence Muslims have always treated non-Muslims – Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi, VP Singh, Bahuguna – as their political leaders. They had more faith in them than in Muslim leaders. Even a person like Dr Jalil Faridi who otherwise was widely respected and had huge credibility could make no dent in UP with his Muslim Majlis.

Talking of replicating the Assam model in UP is playing a highly dangerous political game. In any case, Assam was a fiasco, not a success story. And don't the Muslims know who Ahmed Bukhari is and where he was in the last general elections? He appealed to Muslims to vote for the BJP. I will be surprised if the amount of votes garnered by any of the candidates put up by the two Muslim fronts in the coming UP elections manages to cross four figures.

‘A negative and unfortunate development’

Nishat Hussain
Founder and president, National Muslim Women’s Welfare Society, Jaipur

This would be both a negative and unfortunate development. In the past also, a Muslim political party was created, the Muslim League. What has been its impact? All that it is associated with is the partition of India. By this kind of talk, fascist and communal forces get more strength.

Then there is the other ground level reality. Muslim candidates have rarely won from Muslim majority areas. This is really healthy – the fact that Muslims do not vote according to the community or religion of the candidate but for secular concerns – and this is a healthy tradition that should be encouraged as a trend in politics.

Even if such a party is formed, what will happen? They will fail electorally anyway but with their failure they will have managed (negatively for the overall interests of the community) to raise the bogey of separatism against all Muslims. This will be very unfortunate.

I am confident that the so-called Muslim leadership that is being talked of will be thwarted by the community itself. Having said this, there is a great need for Muslims to build up their political strength and articulate their demands within mainstream political parties. We should think of increasing our impact on the political process overall. The questions Muslims need to ask are where are Muslims today in national politics, why are there no Muslim women in mainstream political parties? What have the so-called Muslim leaders in mainstream parties done for the community’s socio-economic development? Have they been able to raise the real bread-and-butter issues of the Muslim community?

(The National Muslim Women’s Welfare Society, with 800 members all over Rajasthan, was founded in 1989 after Jaipur’s first post-partition outbreak of communal violence during LK Advani’s rath yatra.)

‘Emulate the example of the Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam'

Prof MH Jawahirullah
President, Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam (TMMK)

Muslim leadership always projects emotional issues instead of economic and social issues. The impact of globalisation, agrarian crises and poverty eradication are not articulated.

The PDF should emulate the example of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazhagam. The TMMK is not a political party fighting elections. However, working under a secular democratic framework it has successfully carved out a space for itself in the Tamil Nadu political arena. Its interaction with the non-Muslim community through its various services and actions has earned it high stature in the state's political scenario. Though the TMMK plays a vital political role during elections, it feels that it has not matured enough to become a political party. Our humble suggestion to the PDF is that they should first become a social movement, serve all communities, earn their goodwill and then ultimately become a political party.

‘Very little percolates into any change on the ground’

D. Sharifa Khanam
Director of STEPS Women’s Development Organisation and representative of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Women’s Jamaat, Pudukottai, Tamil Nadu

From the Tamil Nadu experience where there are three or four Muslim formations and organisations – the Tamil Nadu Muslim League (oldest), the Tamil Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (TMMK), the Tamil Nadu Tauheed Jamaat and the Tamil Nadu Muslim Women’s Jamaat – it is clear that they have been able to achieve little for the development and rights of the community. (The Women’s Jamaat articulates Muslim women’s concerns for serious social reform within the community and political rights overall – we have no electoral aims.)

Historically, the Tamil Muslim Munnetra Kazagham allied with the DMK until the latter tied up with the BJP and the TMMK then drifted towards the Congress. The Tauheed Jamaat has allied with the AIADMK. Neither the TMMK nor the Tauheed Jamaat has ever raised issues of reform or discrimination. Unfortunately, these organisations have degenerated into organisations that offer a barter of the Muslim vote at election time. They collect crowds immediately prior to an election and raise issues like reservations for Muslims, education for Muslims, but very little percolates into any change on the ground.

There is discrimination faced by Muslims even for small simple loans. Muslim inclusion in the Below the Poverty Line category (BPL) to avail of PDS and other benefits is minuscule despite the pathetic economic conditions of the community. How is it that these serious community issues are never raised by the MMK and the Tauheed Jamaat? Small subsistence Muslim farmers face despair and exclusion when there is drought. A Muslim woman was tonsured in Perambalur a month ago, another was burnt alive in Pudukottai just recently. Why do such issues not figure in the discourse of these outfits? Because Muslim women are invisible to them and social reform is not a priority for them. They are, in the ordinary Muslim mind, merely forums to transfer votes at election time.

Archived from Communalism Combat, June 2006. Year 12, No.116, Cover Story 3

The post I see the forums that are emerging as bargaining forums, nothing more appeared first on SabrangIndia.