The truth about Aurangzeb from an ambassador of Hindu-Muslim Unity.

 

 

       Communal Propaganda

What is False, What is true ?

 

Published by

 

 

Author

 

Ram Puniyani

(Member of EKTA, Associated with different secular initiatives. Also writes on issues of secular concern.

 

 = = = =

 

 

Introduction

 

The present communal scenario is very disturbing for all of us. Communal politics resorts to violence, and in turn the social issues related to the lives of people are sidetracked. Communal violence bases itself on the myths and stereotypes about weaker sections of society, about the 'other'. It can take place in any country against the weaker group, the minorities. The myths and stereotypes of minorities become the part of social common sense and create havoc in the intercommunity relations. This exercise of spreading hatred against minorities is the hallmark of Fascist, Religious fascist politics. Hitler did similar things against Jews, Communists and others. Pakistani fundamentalists and Talibans undertook similar attempts in different forms. We need to reach to the truth to be able to oppose the hate politics in our society. This book is a small attempt in that direction.

 

EKTA, (Committee for Communal Amity), Mumbai has been interacting with different sections of society and trying to spread the truth behind the myths. This book is an outcome of my interactive lectures with the students, social activists and teachers.

 

I am thankful to Somayyaji, Sarvodaya Mandal who took initiative in getting this booklet published. Friends, Daniel Bhai, Shishir, Ravindra. and others helped in the work in various ways. It is hoped that this low price booklet can reach to different sections of society. It is hoped that all those working for harmony and peace will help in this endeavor by different mechanisms to ensure that communal amity is restored and promoted.

 

Ram Puniyani

EKTA, Committee for Communal Amity, Mumbai

Nov.2002

 

 

 

Communal Propaganda

 

What is False, What is True?

 

 

Friends, today we are going to talk about the issues that are causing violence in our country. In a country where great souls like Mahavir, Buddha and Gandhi presented the principles of non-violence, the matter of continuous violence is of serious concern to us. In this section, we will talk about communal violence in particular.

 

What is communal violence? Communal violence is a phenomenon where innocent people get killed only because they believe in a particular religion. The peculiar thing about this violence is that the people who commit the crime do not get punished most of the time. Why does it happen that some people of society get killed only because they follow a particular religion? One thing is clear in this process. In most societies, a typical kind of understanding is being created against the minorities, which is mainly based on myths. Therefore, an atmosphere of hatred is created and in the times of violence, most people with "social common sense" tend to believe that 'these people' are such that they deserve what is happening to them. In Oct. 2001, many unfortunate incidents took place on a single date. On the front page of the morning newspaper, I read about violence against minority Christians of Pakistan; a page later I read that Muslims were killed in communal violence in Malegaon. Two pages later with great grief I read that in Bangladesh, some Hindus had become subjects of communal oppression.

 

Now the question is how does social common sense come into being? To understand this, we will talk about some popular myths about Muslims in India. There are some myths that are particularly popular: that Muslim rulers demolished temples to humiliate Hindus; that Islam has been propagated through the sword; that there were battles between Hindus and Muslims; that Muslims marry four times and they have twenty children each; that they are dangerous and orthodox and that Islam is spreading terrorism in the world, etcetera.

 

Temple Destructions:

 

Among all these beliefs, we will first try to understand the truth about temple destructions. Were temples demolished to humiliate Hindu religion? Here the first case we will analyze is that of Mohammed Ghaznvi's destruction of the Somnath temple. Most likely, the name Ghaznvi came from a city called Ghazna in Afghanistan where Mohammed Ghaznvi ruled. He must have traveled a long distance to come to Somnath from Ghazna and it is quite certain that he must have passed by numerous temples on his way. The question is why did he not destroy all those temples? He must have seen the famous Buddha idols in Bamiyan but he did not touch them. So the question is- Why did he choose to demolish the Somnath temple only? When he was proceeding towards the Somnath temple, he crossed a city called Multan. Ghaznvi sent a message to the Nawab of Multan whose name was Abdul Fath Daud that he wanted his permission to pass through his city on his way to Somnath. Abdul Fath Daud however declined the permission. This led to a battle between Ghaznvi and Daud during which Multan's "Jama Masjid" was demolished. So for those people who see Ghaznvi as the protector of Islam, they need to wonder how Ghaznvi, on his way to demolishing the Somnath temple, had no hesitation in even destroying a masjid to achieve his goal. After Multan, there was another city named Thaneswar, whose king's name was Anandpal. Again, Ghaznvi requested the king for permission to allow his army to cross his kingdom, which the king provided.

 

Most people are strangers to the fact that before Ghaznvi actually demolished the Somnath temple, he took into his possession the wealth worth crores of rupees. It should be clearly established here that in mediaeval times, some temples-places of worship- had enormous wealth as the devotees gave these offerings to the deity. It is said that the Somnath temple had jewels, diamonds, gold and silver worth Rs. 200 crores. Ghaznvi looted the entire wealth and proudly asserted that because Islam did not accept idol worship, he was demolishing the Hindu temple at Somnath. The question that must be raised is that if Ghaznvi was a soldier of Islam, then why did he not break other temples along the way? Another question that must be raised is that if he was really a soldier of Islam, then why was he instrumental in demolition of masjid on the way. Mohammed Ghaznvi's army had one-third Hindus as soldiers and out of twelve ' siphasalars' – (generals), five were Hindus. Their names were: Tilak, Sondhi, Harjan, Rann and Hind. After winning Somnath, a Hindu king was nominated as his representative and a currency was issued on which the letters were inscribed in Sanskrit.

 

This event reminds me of the story, the elephant and six blind men. When the six blind men tried to comprehend the nature of the elephant they were made to grasp its different parts: one person touched its trunk, another its legs, a third its tail and so on. Later, all of them began to quarrel with each other regarding the actual shape of the elephant. they insisted that it resembled a big rock, a snake, a trunk of a tree etcetera. They did this because they had perceived only one part of the larger truth and hence could not grasp the entire truth. We are also like them because we do not know the full facts of history and we create an opinion on the basis of few facts, which do not represent the totality. There is another thing to remember that many kings used the name of religion to accomplish many of their deeds. Expansion of kingdoms or increasing the wealth of their kingdoms was also undertaken in the name of religion. Earlier, court poets used to write the history of kings. As they were directly dependent on kings, they had no option, but to appreciate all the actions of those kings, hence, mostly they presented their kings as noble religious souls.

 

Now we will discuss about king Harshdev of eleventh century Kashmir. There was a poet in his court whose name was Kalhan. Kalhan wrote a book entitled- Rajtarangini. In this book, he wrote that during his reign, king Harshdev created a new post, whose title was "Devotpannayak".  It means the official who uprooted the images and idols of gods and goddesses. Try to imagine that this is a Hindu king who has appointed an official who would go into temples and uproot and retrieve the idols of gods and goddesses. The fascinating part, however, is that such kings had no use of stone idols, rather they were interested in idols made of gold, silver or the ones' studded with precious stones. Similarly, once the Maratha army attacked Tipu Sultan. This attack did not produce any definitive results, nobody won or lost. The retreating Maratha army demolished the Hindu temple of Srirangapatnam, located in Tipu Sultan's territory. Tipu Sultan however got the temple repaired. Was Maratha army not Hindu, then why did they destroy the temple? It is clear that they wanted to humiliate Tipu Sultan by showing that they could enter his kingdom and destroy its property. Why did Tipu Sultan get this temple repaired? Because he wanted to send a message to his subjects that he respected their sentiments. No king can rule without respecting the wishes of his subject and Tipu did the same.

 

If I ask you- "Who was the most terrible king in the Indian subcontinent?"    you will certainly take the name of Aurangzeb. It is as true as the claim of Pakistan's communal historians that Aurangzeb was the greatest ruler ever of the subcontinent! But what is the truth? Aurangzeb ruled this country for a long time. During his reign, whereas he demolished mandirs and masjids, he also built few mandirs and masjids. He even gave " jagirs" for their maintenance and upkeep. Once, the Nawabs of Golkunda did not give Aurangzeb his tribute for a considerable period of time. Before we go ahead, we must know something about the tribute system of that period in India. During this time, poor farmers and shudras carried out most of the production. A big share of that production used to go to the zamindar , who, in turn, used to give one portion of it to the local king and another portion to the emperor.

 

Coming back to Aurangzeb, when the Nawab of Golkunda did not give the tribute for three years, Aurangzeb sent a team of spies who found out that the Nawab had hidden his treasure beneath a mosque. Aurangzeb ordered that the mosque be dug up and the property confiscated and brought back to Delhi. So this was the 'ideal' Muslim king! The same Aurangzeb gave considerable land in the area of Kashi and Vrindavan for temples. One great historian Dr. Vishwambhar Nath Pandey has mentioned many such firmans court orders in his book "The Farmans of King Aurangzeb". Within this region, there is a Krishna mandir, which was gifted with a lot of gold jewelry by Aurangzeb. Even to the present day during Navratri celebrations, the idol of god Krishna is decked with the same gold jewelry. Dr. Pattabhi Sitaramayya in his book "Feathers and Stone" describes a very painful story. Once Aurangazeb was traveling from Delhi to Calcutta. There were many Hindu Rajas and Queens in his retinue. When the caravan reached Kashi, the queens requested that if there is an overnight stay in Kashi, they can have a holy dip in the Ganges and also pay their respects to Lord Vishwananth in the morning. Aurangzeb readily agreed to the request. The next day morning, the queens went and had a holy dip in the Ganges and then went to have Darshan of Lord Vishwanath. When the group returned, one queen Queen of Kutch was missing. After a long search, she was found dishonored in the temple basement, precisely under the idol of Lord Vishwanath. The Mahant of the temple had raped her. There was intense anger in the whole camp, the Mahant was punished with death sentence and since the temple had been polluted, the idol of Lord was shifted to the new temple and Aurangzeb gave all the money from his treasury to build the new temple. The well-known curator of Patna museum Dr. P.L. Gupta has corroborated this version.

 

This story also tells us that Moghal kings did not bring in too many changes in the social structure of the society. Even Hindus had a large presence in Mughal administration. We all know that out of the nine jewels of Akbar's crown Navratna, two of them Todarmal and Birbal were Hindus. In Shahjahan's administration, the number of Hindu kings was 24% and this number went up to 34% in the reign of King Aurangzeb. There are accounts in History where Parmar kings especially Shubhatvarman got many a Jain temples destroyed. Similarly King Shashank of Gauda got the Bodhi tree cut off. We have to understand that religion was not the major motive of king's action kings' actions. On the contrary, kings used the name of religion for their actions. Hindu kings also destroyed temples, Muslim kings destroyed temples and mosques both.

 

Battles Between Hindu-Muslim kings

 

It is alleged that Hindus and Muslims kept fighting with each other. Many examples are quoted for this. We will try to understand some of these. One such major fight, which forms the base of our 'understanding' is the battle between Rana Pratap and Akbar. Rana Pratap is glorified as a brave and glorious Hindu king fighting against Islam. Why did this battle take place? Was it for some religious motive? To begin with, was it a Hindu-Muslim battle? Raja Mansingh represented Akbar in this battle. Shahajada Salim assisted him in this battle. Rana Pratap had Rajput soldiers under him and Salim had Muslim soldiers. On the other hand, Rana Pratap's major associate was Hakim Khan Sur. Rana Pratap had Rajput soldiers under him and Hakim Khan Sur had Muslim soldiers under him. So on both the sides we see Hindu and Muslim soldiers and generals. The battle took place not on the issue of religion, but on the ground of designation. Akbar was expanding his empire and was offering different designations to different kings. He offered the Panch Hajari (One who can keep five thousand soldiers) status to Rana Pratap, which he refused to accept, as he was demanding the status of Das Hajari (Ten thousand soldiers). Later Jahangir offered the same status Das Hazari to Rana Pratap's son Amarsingh and Amarsingh gladly became Jahangir's associate. But the communalists see it only through the jaundiced eyes of religion and present a picture, which projects it in a totally distorted light.

 

Similarly Shivaji is also presented as an Anti-Muslim king. This is far from truth. His army, especially Navy had many a Muslim soldiers and his lieutenant Siddi Sambal is very famous for his association with Shivaji. Similarly his confidential secretary was Maulana Haider Ali, and the person who helped him to escape from Agra fort captivity was a Muslim Prince Madari Mehtar. He had great regard for a Sufi Saint Hajarat Baba Bahutthorwale and Fr. Ambrose Pinto of Surat. In front of his fort in Raigad, while on one hand, he constructed Jagdishwar temple, similarly he also got a mosque built. He had instructed his armies that during their plunder campaigns if they came across some holy book, they should not defile it but instead return it to the person belonging to that religion. A story is told about his army plundering Kalyan and during the plunder raids, his army abducted the beautiful daughter-in-law of the Subhedar of Kalyan. This Muslim woman, it is told, was presented to Shivaji as a gift. Deviating from the practices of other kings, Shivaji got annoyed with his army and equated the women to his mother. He ordered his generals to send her back with honor to her husband's house. Can such a person be labeled as anti-Muslim by any stretch of imagination?

 

Conversions

 

It is generally believed that Islam spreads on the strength of sword. We should think whether religion, which is a matter of faith, can it ever be imposed by force? How can religions spread- by force or love? In history, many a kings have attributed their empire expansion exercises in the name of religion Crusade, Dharmayuddha, Jihad. But in real sense, conversion was not the aim of kings. There is only one King in History who commissioned all his administration for the spread of a religion. As we know, Samrat Ashok was that king, who after Kailnga war embraced Buddhism and sent most of his officials for spreading the message of Buddhism. Islam spread in India by four mechanisms. These are, fear that our king is a Muslim, in the hope of promotion that our king is Muslim, so if we become Muslim, it may elevate our status and conviction getting attracted by teachings of Islam. But all these were very minor in their impact. The majority (over 90%) conversions took place due to the humanistic influence of Sufi saints. And Shudras embraced Islam in the hope of getting social equality. We should note that the major influence of Islam came in the regions far off from the centers of Mughal rule, such as Kerala and Bengal. The shudras embraced Islam mainly to escape the tyranny of Landlords and Brahmins. Incidentally we should note that the major conversion in the subcontinent was that of Dr. Ambedkar in 1956, and again the reason, which was operative, was to escape the clutches of Brahminism.

 

Let us note in passing that the present feeling that Christians are converting by force, fraud and allurement needs a deeper introspection. The census figures are quite revealing. The Christian population as per 1971 is 2.60%, in 1981 it became 2.44%, in 1991-2.32% and in 2001 it stands at 2.18%! The share of Christians in total population is continuously declining and we tend to believe that forcible conversions into Christianity are on. Christianity arrived in India in the year 52 AD, with the coming of St. Thomas. It is 1950 years old here. Lets us also note that Wadhva commission which went into investigating the murder of Pastor Graham Steward Stains came to the conclusion that there was no substantial rise in the number of Christians in the area where this Pastor was working and also that Pastor Stains was not involved in conversions. This is not to deny that some fringe groups do convert and make a lot of noise about it, but surely they are a miniscule.

 

Similarly it is alleged that Muslim kings converted Hindu temples into their tombs etc. And here some give the example of Taj Mahal. It is claimed that Taj Mahal was a Shiva temple, which was converted into a tomb by Shaha Jahan. This is far from true as will become evident from many a historical records and documents. Shahja Jehan's Badshahnama makes it abundantly clear. Similarly a European traveler Peter Mundy writes that the emperor Shahjahan is in deep grief due to the death of his favorite wife, Mumtazmahal and is building an impressive mausoleum in his memory. A French jeweler Tavernier who visited India at that time corroborates this. The daily account books of Shahjahan do give the detailed record of the expenses made, like the money spent for marble and the wages for the workers etc. The only base of this misconception is the mention that the land was bought from Raja Jaisingh for a compensation. It is also to be noted that Jaisingh to whom this Shaiva temple is attributed was a Vaishnav and it is not possible that a Viashnav king will build a Shaiv temple.

 

The Ram Janmabhoomi agitation is also based on half-truths. It is said that there was a Hindu temple, which was razed to the ground by Babar's general Mir Baqui, who built a mosque in Babar's name. This again is based on a very casual mention in the Ayodhya gazette that there might have been a temple in the part of the land where the mosque is located. This was put in there by design of British gazette writer Mrs. A.F. Beeveridge. We know that when British came here, they wanted to win over the loyalty of Indian people. And in this direction, they propagated that they have come here to help the Indians get rid of the tyranny of Muslim rule. To achieve this goal, they tried to defame Mughal rulers and spread the word that Muslim rulers destroyed Hindu temples. As such we can see that there are over fifty Ram temples in Ayodhya claiming to be the birthplace of Ram. The greatest Ram Bhakta of all the times, Goswami Tulsidas was living in Ayodhya just twenty-five years later. He does not mention any such incident in his writings. While talking of Tulsidas, it is interesting to note that Tulsidas was the first to write Lord Ram's story in Avadhi Hindi. This violated the Brahminical norm prevalent at that time, that the upper caste should only use Devbhasha, Sanskrit. Since Tulsidas violated this rule, he was banished from his community and was not permitted to enter Ram Temple. Unperturbed by this, he started living in a mosque.

 

Tulsi sarnam Gulam hai Ram Ko, Jako Chahe So kahe voho

Mang ke Khaibe Masjid ma Rahibe Lebo ko Ek na Debe ko Dou

 

("Tulsi is a slave of Ram, let people say what they like

I survive on alms, live in a mosque, my give and take with the world is done."

:From Vinaycaritvali, Tulsidas's autobiography)

 

We should remember that in Indian tradition, a) woman generally goes to her   mother's  house for giving birth to her first child. Since Ram was Kaushalya's first son, it is unlikely that Lord might have been born in Ayodhya. Also Babar was opposed to desecration of temples as is clear from his will to his son Humayun. He writes "Son, this nation, Hindustan has different religions. Thank Allah for giving us this Kingdom. We should remove all the differences from our heart and do justice to each community according to its customs. Avoid cow-slaughter to win over the hearts of the people of this land and to incorporate the people in the matters of administration. Don't damage the places of worship and temples, which fall in the boundaries of our rule. Evolve a method of ruling whereby all the people of the kingdom are happy with the king and the king is happy with the people. Islam can progress by noble deeds and not by terror. Ignore the differences of Shia and Sunni as this is the weakness of Islam. Keep the people following different customs integrated into a single whole so that no part of the body of this kingdom becomes diseased." (From National Museum, New Delhi)

 

Syncretic Traditions

 

The communal view of history totally sidetracks the syncretic, mixed traditions of Indian culture. There was a great development of Ganga Jamani tahjib (the culture and life style that emerged due to interaction of Hindus and Muslims). It has become part of all aspects of our life; food, language, music, architecture and what have you. The Hindu Bhakti and Muslim Sufi saints tried to bridge both the communities by their non-orthodox approach, which appealed to the hearts of the people to spread the message of love. Many a Sufi saints contributed a lot in the development of local languages, like Baba Farid to the Punjabi poetry. These saints worked a great deal for the unity of the people, especially the ordinary people and more so the poor. In most of the cities we will find that the temples of Bhakti saints and Dargahs of Sufi saints are frequented by people of both the religions.

 

Saint Kabir is the highest point of this syncretic tradition. He criticized the rigidities of Mullahs and Brahmins both and emphasized on love between the people as the central aspect of religions. Similarly Guru Nanak appreciated the humanistic teachings of both the religions, and drew a great deal from the teachings of Kabir. Kabir could appeal so well to Hindus on one side and Muslims on the other that both of them regarded him as their own saint/pir. Granth Sahib, the holy book draws heavily from Hindu traditions and also from the Koran. In recognition of his contribution to Hindu-Muslim unity, people started saying,

 

Baba Nanak Sant Fakir, Hindu ka Guru Muslaman ka Pir

 

(Baba Nanak is a noble saint, he is guru of Hindus and pir of Muslims)

 

Friends, the communal view of History was first introduced by British to pursue their policy of divide and rule. The same type of understanding of History prevails in the History books of Pakistan (the only difference being that Muslim rulers are glorified and Hindu rulers denigrated) and in the communal thinking of our country.

 

British Rule: Changes in Indian Society

 

In this part of the discussion, we will have a look at the impact on Indian society due to coming in of British. The socio-political changes caused by the British arrival had profound impact on our social structure.

 

Rise of Communal politics

 

Before British came to India, the Indian society was predominantly based on agriculture and craft. The main aim of British in coming here was to plunder raw materials and to establish the markets here. Like other White powers, they also projected that they have come here to fulfill the divine obligation of civilizing the people of this country, 'White man's burden' so to say. They also went on to say that they want to protect the Indians from the tyranny of Mughal rulers. To fulfill their goals, they started to lay down transport mechanisms, educational institutions etc. This, in turn, resulted in the emergence of new classes here. The new business class, which began by supplying raw materials, later on went in to lay the foundation of industries. Secondly, the educated class, which began as clerks also, came up. And thirdly the working class started getting formed from the earlier craftsman and peasants. The new emerging classes started forming their political associations and the political aspiration of this came forward in the form of formation of Indian National Congress in 1885. This organization put forward the demands to British administration to the effect that more facilities be given to Indian industrialists to set up their enterprises, Indians should be given more place in administration and the centers of ICS exam be started in major Indian cities and a sort of limitation be brought in on the land holdings. In response to this, the Rajas, Nawabs, Jamindars and Jagirdars came together to form United India Patriotic Association. This association said that the demands and methods of Congress smell of rebellion against the British crown and are against 'our' religion of Rajbhakti (Loyalty to the ruler). So the association vowed to cultivate the loyalty of Indian people to the British crown. Various members of this Association later went on to form Muslim League or Hindu Mahasabha. British played a subtle role in emergence and strengthening of both these communal streams.

 

The Muslim communal stream consolidated in the form of Muslim League and said that Muslims are (a) separate Nation for the last 1300 years, since the invasion of Muhammad bin Kasim on Sind; So they should have a separate Islamic state. While the Hindu communal stream in the form of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS pointed out that this is essentially a Hindu Nation since the arrival of Aryans 5000 years ago, and there is no question of separate Islamic state. Muslim Nation has to remain here itself, as a subordinate to the Hindu Nation.   Incidentally, later this Aryan arrival thesis was changed over to 'Aryans as the natives' to claim the benefits of 'the first comers'. Interestingly both the Hindu Nation and Muslim Nation streams agreed on the 'Two- Nation theory' ; they believed in Religion- based Nationalism and both these were heavily critical of the National movement, Mahatma Gandhi and its aim of composite nationalism, the one based on Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. In contrast to the Communal Nationalist demands, Congress and the National movement, put forward the concept of Indian Nation where all the people, whatever be their religion, caste and gender, will have equal citizenship ; religion, or to be more precise, the religious clergy, will not dictate the state policies. State policies will be determined by the secular needs of the people. This movement could involve people, men and women from all the religions.

 

Due to the British policy of Divide and Rule, Muslims League was recognized as THE representative of the Muslims and Congress and some leaders of Hindu Mahsabha were recognized as representatives of Hindus. Jawaharlal Nehru, on occasions retorted angrily that the British policy of recognizing Muslim League as repetitive representative of Muslims is wrong as majority of Muslims were with Congress. In both the elections, which were held in 1937 and 1946, both Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha were routed at the hustings as most of the Muslims and Hindus voted only for Congress. In 1938, Bhai Paramanand of Hindu Mahasabha said, " Mr. Jinnah argues that there are two nations in the country, if Mr. Jinnah is right, and I believe he is, then the Congress theory of building common nationality falls to the ground. The situation has two solutions, one- the partition of country in to two and second to allow Muslim state to grow in the Hindu state." In 1940 when Muslim League passed the resolution demanding formation of Pakistan, there were demonstrations against the Muslim League offices all over, more so in Delhi, in which poor Muslims participated and condemned the Muslim League demand. Majority of Muslim leadership like Maulana Abul Kalam Azad, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, Rafi Ahmad Kidwai and the Olems of Barelivli and Deoband supported Gandhi's call for composite Indian Nationalism. Unfortunately towards the end, due to the use of "Islam in danger" slogan by Muslim League, many a middle class elements also started supporting the demand for Pakistan.

 

Partition Tragedy

 

As such, there are many a factors responsible for this tragedy. One can say that the whole process took place due to three factors. The first one being British policy of divide and rule, second being Muslim communal politics and third being the Hindu communal politics. The last in the sequence was quite concealed and operated by putting pressure on the policies of Congress and also by provoking the Muslim communalists. So many a times it seems to have played no role, which is not the truth. As such, there was a fair deal of agreement on Cripps mission proposals. According to this, except Foreign affairs, defense, communication and currency, the central Govt was to deal with all other matters. Later, due to different factors, Nehru and Sardar Patel both said that Cripps mission was not final and that the decision may be reviewed by Constituent assembly. Sardar Patel felt that due to Cripps proposals, the central Govt. would remain weak and that it was not desirable for security of the country. Similarly Nehru felt that the program of modernization industrialization and land reforms might not be possible with a weak center. This led to rising differences between Congress and Muslim League; ultimately resulting in Partition, a tragedy that plunged the whole sub continent in darkness and still continues to haunt the society in various ways. Even Gandhi could not prevent this tragedy as British were also contributing their bit to ensure that the country is divided so that the Imperialist powers can have stronger say and presence in the subcontinent.

 

Partition led to massive violence and many a people migrated from one to the other part. Most of the Muslims of this region chose to remain here only. A handful of Muslims, mainly elite, landlords, businessmen in the hope to avoid competition from Hindu rivals, and bureaucrats, in the hope of getting higher posts left for Pakistan. After the initial lot, those Muslims who went to Pakistan were most unwelcome there and even today they have to live the life of second class citizens. They are conducting Mohajir Quami Movement to gain respect and equal rights in their "own Muslim" country. Over a period of time, Pakistan came to be ruled by three A's, Army, Allah (mullahs), and America. East Pakistan was dominated by the West Pakistan. When Urdu was declared as the National Language, East Pakistan rebelled. This cultural and economic discontent led to the movement for separation of East from West Pakistan, resulting in formation of Bangla Desh. Even today Rabindra Sangeet is very popular in Bangla Desh. This was the last nail in the coffin of communalist theory that Religion is the basis of Nation state; while India which was formed on the basis of secularism survives as a single Nation despite serious attack on its constitution by the communalists. 

 

It is very clear that the mainstream of the country supported Gandhi-Nehru-Azad line of composite Indian Nationalism. Most of the people supported this movement irrespective of their religion. The most significant point of this movement was participation of women in large numbers. The Muslim and Hindu communal streams had blessings of elite of society related to kings and landlords and clergy. Some middle class elements also got influenced by this ideology and started supporting it. But overall this number was very small as reflected in the results of elections. On the face of it one may think that these communalisms Hindu and Muslim are very hostile to each other but they share a lot with each other:

1.          They did not struggle against British imperialism

2.          They consolidated themselves by spreading hatred against the 'other' community.

3.          These ideologies developed within the sections of communities, they always projected as if they are responding to the communalism of the 'other' community.

4.          They had similar social base- landlords of that community, traditional businessmen, sections of clergy more amongst Hindus, sections of bureaucrats (More amongst Muslims)

5.          They hated each other and the composite Nationalism of Congress.

6.          Both believed in Two- Nation theory. A) Muslim communalists: Only a Muslim Nation can protect the interests of Muslims,(B)) Hindu Communalists: This is a Hindu Rashtra/Nation, Muslims have to live as subordinate to Hindus.

 

Kashmir Tangle

 

Lets have a bit of a look at the Kashmir issue. At the time of independence, there were over four hundred princely states. These states were given three options, a) to merge with India, b) to merge with Pakistan, c) to remain independent. The kings were given the guidelines to take a decision based on physical proximity and the opinion of people. While problem of most of the states was solved with ease, the Kings of Hyderabad, Junagarh and Kashmir showed a bit of a hesitation in taking decision. Hyderabad and Junagarh were merged into India by military action. Kashmir's King Hari Singh wanted to remain independent and he had the vision of developing Kashmir into Switzerland of Asia. He offered standstill agreement to both India and Pakistan. While Pakistan accepted the treaty, India refused. Before any conclusive decision could be reached about the status of Kashmir, Pakistan invaded Kashmir through the army disguised as tribals. Maharaja Haris Singh left the valley for security reasons and began negotiations with India through emissaries for sending the army to Kashmir to defend Kashmir. Nehru stated that unless some agreement is signed, India couldn't send its army to a state where it has no legal standing. Accordingly, a treaty of accession was drafted with the article 370 for safeguard of the people of the state. According to the accession treaty. Its principle was Two Chiefs, Two Constitutions- (Do Pradhan Do Vidhan), India was to look after defence, external affairs, communication and currency while the assembly will decide all other matters. The provisions of Indian constitutions were not to be made applicable to Kashmir as Kashmir was to have its own constitution. On these conditions, India sent its army. By that time Pakistani army had already occupied 1/3^rd of Kashmir. To avoid civilian casualties, ceasefire was declared and matter was taken to United Nations. As per UN resolution, a plebiscite was to be held after both the armies vacated Kashmir. This could not take place so far. Pakistan declared its part of Kashmir as Azad Kashmir and Indian part had its Prime Minister and Sadar-e-Riyasat.

 

Indian govt. came under pressure from the time Jana Sangh (the previous avatar of BJP) to forcibly merge Kashmir into India. Sheikh Abdullah, the popular Prime Minister refused to yield to the Govt. of India's pressures. On the charge of treason, he was sentenced to jail for 17 years. During this time the post of Kashmir's Prime minister was changed to Chief minister and Sadar-e-Riyasat was changed over to Governor and gradually the reach of Indian constitution was extended to Kashmir. Indian Govt. started to supervise the affairs of Kashmir. Democratic process started getting weaker and weaker. This initiated a process of alienation amongst Kashmiri youth. Even elections were tampered severely. This resulted in the rise of militancy due to the restrictions on the democratic process. The internal dissatisfaction started giving support to terrorism. Taking advantage of this, Pakistan started sending its militants and the problem started getting worse by the day. Again Faroukh Abdullah was jailed for seven long years, showing that the central Govt. did not trust the locally elected representatives. The worsening communal scenario in India in the decade of 80's added fuel to the fire of terrorism in Kashmir. Meanwhile, a communal angle was being given to the harmony prevalent between Kashmiri Pandits and the local Muslim population. Terrorists took advantage of that distortion.

 

When Jagmaohan was governor of Kashmir, he offered to Pandits the transport to leave the valley. The local leaders of Muslim community opposed the move to the hilt. But encouraged by Jagmohan, the Pandits left the valley and are living the wretched life in refugee camps. It also must be noted that in the victims of terrorist violence there are large number of Muslims also who either were killed or had to leave the valley. Essentially a problem between two neighboring countries has been given a communal color. Kashmiri leadership had all the opportunity to merge with Pakistan but they did not do so all through. And even today many a Kashmiri Muslims are opposed to a merger with Pakistan as per various surveys.

 

Four wives, twenty children

 

In today's prevalent social common sense it is understood that Muslims marry four times and they have larger families. Nothing can be farther from truth. We know that the sex ratio (Number of females per thousand males) is fairly adverse for the women in our country. For Muslims, it is 931, i.e. for every thousand males there are only 931 females. In that case how can Muslim males marry more than once? As such, the incidence of polygamy in India, amongst Hindus and Muslims, is more or less similar. It is true that in Islamic tradition marrying more than once has been permitted. But again it is not an eternal value of Islam. It was permitted in the context of Arab society where many a tribes were fighting with each other and the number of women in society was very high. In that context, polygamy was permitted to take care of the number of women, which was higher than that of men. Today in most of the Muslim majority countries, polygamy is illegal.

 

In our country, the Muslim community has been living under the constant threat of violence. In the communal riots the number of riot victims amongst Muslims is 80% while their overall population is roughly 13%. This sense of insecurity results in the domination of Mullahs and retrograde elements amongst the Muslim community. This insecurity affects the non-implementation of the gender justice in civil code. We have to note that most of the civil codes are against the equal rights for women, and so we do not need a uniform inequality. We want a gender just civil code. The application of civil codes depends on the fact of security of the community. No threatened community can focus on reforms on priority basis. As such also, till 1992, before the demolition of Babri Masjid the progressive and regressive elements in the community were balancing out and progress and reform was picking up. Since Babri demolition, the feeling of insecurity amongst Muslims has gone up and so has the opposition to gender just code. Amongst Hindus, the incidence of polygamy is 5.8 and amongst Muslims it is 5.7. The number of children in the family does not much depend on religion. It has more to do with the educational and social development of the community. The number of children amongst the poor is higher. In this sense, the family pattern amongst Dalits and Muslims is very matching.

 

Minority Appeasement

 

It is also alleged that Muslims are being appeased. What is the truth? Indian National Congress was formed for people from all the religions. And in its fold there were people from all sections of society. Muslims also were part of it. The Hindu communalists even at that time accused the congress of appeasing Muslims. This charge came up again during the freedom movement when Gandhi ensured that the movement was a real representative of India as a whole. Currently since 1980s, the charge has come up again. It is true that rulers many a times have appeased the fundamentalist leadership of Muslims, so they have appeased the fundamentalist section of Hindu leadership also. The condition of Muslims remains pathetic. As such nearly 40% of Indian are living below the poverty line. But amongst Muslims this figure is 66%. As we have seen the number of Muslims in Indian population is around 13% but its representation in the jobs is much lower than its population. As such the economic and social condition of Muslims is comparatively worse off. Illiteracy is more amongst Muslims. The number of Muslims in business and jobs is much lower. The percentage of Muslims in class I jobs is 3.19, in class II it is 4.30 and in class IV it is just 8.16. In IAS, there are 2.14 per cent Muslims. In 1980, only 1.5 per cent of them were given industrial licenses, in 1981 only 3.44 per cent Muslims were amongst those getting MBBS degree. It confirms that overall the Muslim community, rather than being appeased is being discriminated against.

 

It is being said that Muslims are more conservative and orthodox, they oppress their women and that they are terrorists. Superficially this may even sound to be true but if we look at the things in slight depth, we will realize that the characteristics of the community are determined more by social situation rather then just by religion. Amongst Muslims again, are all Muslims of same nature? The Muslims of Kerala, UP, Bihar, Malaysia, Turkey are having different characteristics. Today there are over 50 countries where Muslims are in majority, their population is around 200 crores, can they be typified by single characteristic? In countries where democratization process has progressed, the nature of Muslims is more liberal and is keeping in tune with the times. In countries where democratization has been stifled, the conservatism and orthodoxy takes the central stage. Wherever they feel insecure, again conservatism develops more than liberalism. In countries where democracy is more rooted, women are competing with men in most spheres of life. Turkey has been one of the examples where democracy could grow to some extent and so could secular values. In Iraq before US invasion (1991) the condition of women was fairly good. In countries where democracy is stifled, Mullahs' power grows along with the retrograde tendencies in society. Islam has also various interpretations. The humanistic Islam of progressive Muslims is so different from the repressive values being propagated by a set of fanatic Mullahs. In these circumstances the repression of women also grows.

 

Islam and Terrorism

 

Coming to terrorism and Islam, it is again a misfortune that most of the countries where Islam developed, are the countries rich in oil, countries where the democracy has been suppressed and dictatorship promoted with the aim that Imperialists' can have more control on oil resources. As such, it is not easy to define terrorism. Broadly it can be said that to intimidate or kill any innocent person for the political gain is terrorism. People belonging to many religions have resorted to terrorism. Even today the biggest terrorist organization is LTTE, in which majority of its members are Hindus. Does it mean that Hinduism promotes terrorism? In no way. Section of Sikhs resorted to terrorism during Khalistani movement. Timothy McWeigh, a frustrated soldier from Iraq war of 1991 bombed in Oklahoma to kill around 300 people. He was a Christian. A Jew dropped a bomb on a Cairo Hotel in 1942; does it make all the Jews as terrorists? Terrorism has come up in a big way after US backed Israel rampaged the Palestinians and violated all the UN resolutions with impunity. The actions of Israel resulted in over six million people becoming refugees. This has been the major irritant, which has promoted terrorism. In 1953, US overthrew the democratically elected Mosaddeq regime in Iran and installed a Monarch in its place. Similarly its attack on Iraqi in 1991 and the forthcoming war on Iraq are mainly motivated by the lust to control oil zone. America trained a huge number of Jihadis to overthrow the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan by Soviet Russia.

 

It is this context that has set the trend for the terrorists in the name of Islam, Jihad etc. Terrorism is like a cancer. It may begin in response to some phenomenon or a political design by some one but soon it assumes cancerous proportions and becomes uncontrollable. Since US has been promoting Sheikhs and dictators in the oil zone, the frustrated youth have been coming under the spell of so-called Jihad and terrorism. This has nothing what so ever do with the teachings of Islam, which say that killing one innocent is like killing the whole humanity. Generally religious teachings do not promote terrorism but terrorists resort to the cover of religion to achieve their political motives. Wherever the fundamentalist governments come to power, they suppress the democratic rights and also suppress the rights of women. The real problem is the misuse of religion for political purpose.

 

Communalism or Secular Values?

 

Let's now have a look at some definitions. There are two types of politics. One based on equality of all citizens irrespective of religion or gender. This is based on the concept of citizenship. This secularism is the foundation of democracy. The second politics takes its legitimacy from religion. Here it is understood that people belonging to one religion have similar interests and these interests are opposed to the interests of those belonging to other religion. Now in this concept of politics, let's presume that Finance minister reduces the rate of interest. Will this equally affect ALL people of one religion? While the salaried employees will feel upset due to this as their returns on provident fund will come down, at the same time the industrialists will be happy due to this while some sections like poor, unemployed will hardly be concerned about this and beggars will not even be knowing what a rate of interest is. Similar will be the plight of different sections of other community. Salaried employees feeling one way, business groups the other way and the poorer sections in a third way, irrespective of their religions.

 

Secular democratic principles have been the hallmark of our democratic struggle. India's struggle for freedom has been based on the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity and people belonging to different religions took part in it. While Muslim and Hindu elite believed in Islamic state or Hindu Rashtra, they remained totally aloof from the freedom struggle and [are] also against the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The secular principles have come into constitution, as they were the hallmark of the struggle for freedom. This politics is based on the principle of representation.

 

In contrast, those believing in religion-based nationalism are opposed to Democracy. In the name of religion, by taking support of clergy, they try to strengthen their vested interests, simultaneously trying to eradicate democratic principles. There is no concept of representation in this and the power is exercised in the name of this or that god depending on the particular religion.

 

Similar politics has been seen by the human race in the times when race based politics of Nazism and fascism rampaged Europe, in Germany and Italy. Fascist politics presents itself in the name of race and gradually after targeting the 'other' races does away with the very concept of democracy/citizenship itself. In such politics, which is based on religion or race the minorities are targeted one after the other and those struggling for human rights are eliminated altogether. Italy and Germany both witnessed the elimination of minorities and then the whole social fabric itself was dissipated by the Fascist onslaught.

 

Today again fascist forces are raising their head. In many a Muslim countries, Religious fascism (fundamentalism) is oppressing the society and in our own country, Religious fascism is trying to abolish Indian constitution and democracy. Be it Tailban, basing itself in the name of Islam or be it RSS/Sangh parivar operating in the name of Hindutva, they aim at the same goal-abolition of democratic space and preservation of status quo of caste/class and gender.

 

Today more than ever, we need to preserve the democratic principles, the gains of our freedom struggle. We need to oppose those spreading hatred against other religions. We need to strengthen the principle of Unity with diversity. The need is to restore the values enunciated by Gautam Buddha, Kabir, Nanak and Gandhi. That's the only way to preserve our democracy.

 

 ---------

Back Inside Cover

 

"I am a Sanatani Hindu. I will give my life for my religion. But that is my personal matter. About India for whose fashioning I am struggling, that will be totally secular. Neither my religion will dictate the state, nor state will dictate my Religion".

 

Mahatma Gandhi

(Gandhi and Communal Harmony, CSSS, Mumbai, 2001)

 

"At this time some Indian leaders have joined the fray of politics. They want to separate Religion from politics. This is a very nice way of ending the dispute. We support it.

If religion can be separated (from politics) than we can all come together on political ground, even if we have different religions".

 

.

__,_._,___